NODE 64e18a63Re: e$: Come aaaannnndddd Get it!
jimbell@pacifier.com (jim bell)Sat, 18 Nov 1995 03:09:56 +0800
>> I will as soon as someone comes up with a _fully_ private digital
>> cash system and starts using it for something. As I understand it, Chaum's
>> ecash system is not one (i.e., non-privacy to the sender and of amounts
to the
>> bank). If I'm incorrect, please tell me and I'll set up an account with MTB
>> immediately (if there's a text-based interface).
>
> ecash provides full payor anonymity. Payee anonymity is
>currently not possible, but that is being worked on.
>
> If you used ecash to pay for a c2.org account, neither I nor
>the bank would be able to trace the payment into the c2.org account to
>an actual account at mark twain bank.
>sameer Voice: 510-601-9777
>Community ConneXion FAX: 510-601-9734
If you've been following my idea, "assassination politics," you know that
there is an excellent use for payee-anonymous digital cash.
It seems to me that this should be possible, within limits, if the potential
payee could generate a "blinded" note to be delivered to the payer by
anonymous means. The payer could get the note certified by the bank,
possibly given an extra "blind" if necessary (is this possible? Desirable?
Why not?) and then the resulting still-blinded but certified note is posted
(in encrypted form, I supposed) to the 'net so that only the payee can
decrypt and unblind it.
NODE a8173143Re: e$: Come aaaannnndddd Get it!
futplex@pseudonym.com (Futplex)Sat, 18 Nov 1995 06:47:46 +0800
jim bell writes: [re: payee anonymity]
> It seems to me that this should be possible, within limits, if the potential
> payee could generate a "blinded" note to be delivered to the payer by
> anonymous means. The payer could get the note certified by the bank,
> possibly given an extra "blind" if necessary (is this possible? Desirable?
> Why not?) and then the resulting still-blinded but certified note is posted
> (in encrypted form, I supposed) to the 'net so that only the payee can
> decrypt and unblind it.
This sounds like a version of "Hey, I'll pay you $10, if you give me a ten
dollar bill first." As I understand your protocol, Bob gives Alice an enote,
then Alice gives Bob an enote. Alice isn't paying Bob in any meaningful sense,
since Bob ends up with the same amount of e$ with which he started. Perhaps
you could clarify what you meant.
-Futplex <futplex@pseudonym.com>
"I'm not touched, but I'm aching to be...."