Re: arbiter/escrow agent for hire

From:	IN%"bryce@digicash.com" 24-APR-1996 10:05:20.14

>1. Acceptable digital signature upon the "bet statement" 
>from each bettor.  (Note that PGP signatures from PGP key
>pairs which are not connected to me via the Web of Trust, or
>which are not verifiable by me via an out-of-band
>connection, are not acceptable digital signatures.  This is
>because of the MITM attack problem, not because  I need True
>Names to be connected to the signatures.)

	IIRC, currently Black Unicorn doesn't have any signatures on
his public key of others. Therefore, this requirement, while understandable,
could cause a bit of a difficulty in the current situation.

>3. Amount of the bet from each bettor.  This chunk of money
>will be known as the "ante".  Note that depending upon the
>details of the "bet statement", each bettor may submit a
>different ante.  (Yes, up front.  Yes, I get antes from both
>bettors.  Yes, I keep them while the bet is being settled.  
>Why do you think my fee is so low?)

	Chuckle.
	-Allen

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

E. Allen Smith <eallensmith@ocelot.rutgers.edu> wrote:
(> Bryce wrote:)
> >1. Acceptable digital signature upon the "bet statement" 
> >from each bettor.  (Note that PGP signatures from PGP key
> >pairs which are not connected to me via the Web of Trust, or
> >which are not verifiable by me via an out-of-band
> >connection, are not acceptable digital signatures.  This is
> >because of the MITM attack problem, not because  I need True
> >Names to be connected to the signatures.)
> 
> 	IIRC, currently Black Unicorn doesn't have any signatures on
> his public key of others. Therefore, this requirement, while understandable,
> could cause a bit of a difficulty in the current situation.


Hm.  This is a toughie.  For one it would help if Black
Unicorn had a "pseudonym keysignature" from someone who had
a Web O Trust link to me.  This would make me more certain
that a hypothetical man in the middle between me and the
rest of you wasn't able to impersonate Black Unicorn.  Of
course, such a MITM could still impersonate Black Unicorn by
being between Uni and the rest of us.  It would help if Uni
made a habit of publishing his true public key via various
difficult-to-intercept channels, but of course we can't
_know_ whether Uni is doing that or not in any case.



Yeah, it's hard to gain trust in the absence of a Mitch (a.k.a.
MITM) between Uni and us.  It is feasible, for my purposes,
though.  We could tie Uni's ostensible pubkey to the Web of
Trust.  We could assume that Uni is resourceful enough to
publish his own pubkey via difficult-to-intercept channels,
to check his own pubkey, and to broadcast a warning if any
active attack is detected.  Then as time passed we could
gain trust in the lack of an active attack on that pubkey.


Currently neither the first (add key to WoT) nor the second
(believe that Uni is actively trying to propagate/check his
key) step is working...


Regards,

Bryce




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2i
Comment: Auto-signed under Unix with 'BAP' Easy-PGP v1.1b2

iQB1AwUBMYORSEjbHy8sKZitAQGXkAMAvU13aY2pzagOtSoYSomvO2tYzZBNZzUw
4Ke8a4tprEOP7r+nkXLH0EJgDEG4OSBzj3FmpxJ6OrMnsb/qDo0vXfI/GlIal0/j
J2z+LxOQvoSOMRKvydZUA/8Wc64+gKYH
=x3Nm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Wed, 24 Apr 1996, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote:

> From:	IN%"bryce@digicash.com" 24-APR-1996 10:05:20.14
> 
> >1. Acceptable digital signature upon the "bet statement" 
> >from each bettor.  (Note that PGP signatures from PGP key
> >pairs which are not connected to me via the Web of Trust, or
> >which are not verifiable by me via an out-of-band
> >connection, are not acceptable digital signatures.  This is
> >because of the MITM attack problem, not because  I need True
> >Names to be connected to the signatures.)
> 
> 	IIRC, currently Black Unicorn doesn't have any signatures on
> his public key of others. Therefore, this requirement, while understandable,
> could cause a bit of a difficulty in the current situation.

Please obtain a copy of my current key by finger.

---
My preferred and soon to be permanent e-mail address:unicorn@schloss.li
"In fact, had Bancroft not existed,       potestas scientiae in usu est
Franklin might have had to invent him."    in nihilum nil posse reverti
00B9289C28DC0E55  E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information
Opp. Counsel: For all your expert testimony needs: jimbell@pacifier.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

 Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li> wrote:
(> "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU> wrote:)
> > 	IIRC, currently Black Unicorn doesn't have any signatures on
> > his public key of others. Therefore, this requirement, while understandable,
> > could cause a bit of a difficulty in the current situation.
> 
> Please obtain a copy of my current key by finger.


Oh please.  My respect for Uni's acumen just decremented a
couple of notches.  A 2048-bit key, and no signatures?
Rather like a front door with welded plate armor and an open
window, no?


Let's talk more off-list...


Regards,

Bryce




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2i
Comment: Auto-signed under Unix with 'BAP' Easy-PGP v1.1b2

iQB1AwUBMYOSHkjbHy8sKZitAQGCdgL+J7TWOfx0izYITDa3UlXFP68k5DfAFrlb
FWR3NP10/eqDDr/6guzse4Slp0SoCT49uVsy4kiZvwOT6uUIOv1DhobrUjHJMF1T
LmNlAAPnAYK/NfwmZNQAX6NRbLPxd66o
=EUxl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Sun, 28 Apr 1996 bryce@digicash.com wrote:

> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 
>  Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li> wrote:
> (> "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU> wrote:)
> > > 	IIRC, currently Black Unicorn doesn't have any signatures on
> > > his public key of others. Therefore, this requirement, while understandable,
> > > could cause a bit of a difficulty in the current situation.
> > 
> > Please obtain a copy of my current key by finger.
> 
> 
> Oh please.  My respect for Uni's acumen just decremented a
> couple of notches.  A 2048-bit key, and no signatures?
> Rather like a front door with welded plate armor and an open
> window, no?

My key is hardly signatureless.  Please obtain a current copy.

---
My preferred and soon to be permanent e-mail address:unicorn@schloss.li
"In fact, had Bancroft not existed,       potestas scientiae in usu est
Franklin might have had to invent him."    in nihilum nil posse reverti
00B9289C28DC0E55  E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information
Opp. Counsel: For all your expert testimony needs: jimbell@pacifier.com

bryce@digicash.com wrote:

>  Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li> wrote:
> (> "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU> wrote:)
> > >     IIRC, currently Black Unicorn doesn't have any signatures on
> > > his public key of others. Therefore, this requirement, while understandable,
> > > could cause a bit of a difficulty in the current situation.
> >
> > Please obtain a copy of my current key by finger.
> 
> Oh please.  My respect for Uni's acumen just decremented a
> couple of notches.  A 2048-bit key, and no signatures?
> Rather like a front door with welded plate armor and an open
> window, no?
> 
> Let's talk more off-list...

Hang on!  This is interesting - keep in on-list!

What's the big deal about not having signed his own key?

The only thing that signing your own key does is show the
[claimed] id of the real keyholder.  There's no scope for
abuse.  Claiming this to be an armour door and open window
is overreacting a bit.

Gary
--
pub  1024/C001D00D 1996/01/22  Gary Howland <gary@systemics.com>
Key fingerprint =  0C FB 60 61 4D 3B 24 7D  1C 89 1D BE 1F EE 09 06

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

 An entity callnig itself Gary Howland <gary@systemics.com> is
 alleged to have written:
>
> bryce@digicash.com wrote:
> 
> >  Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li> wrote:
> > (> "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU> wrote:)
> > > >     IIRC, currently Black Unicorn doesn't have any signatures on
> > > > his public key of others. Therefore, this requirement, while understandable,
> > > > could cause a bit of a difficulty in the current situation.
> > >
> > > Please obtain a copy of my current key by finger.
> > 
> > Oh please.  My respect for Uni's acumen just decremented a
> > couple of notches.  A 2048-bit key, and no signatures?
> > Rather like a front door with welded plate armor and an open
> > window, no?
> > 
> > Let's talk more off-list...
> 
> Hang on!  This is interesting - keep in on-list!


If we did, we'd have to kill you.  8-)


> What's the big deal about not having signed his own key?
> 
> The only thing that signing your own key does is show the
> [claimed] id of the real keyholder.  There's no scope for
> abuse.  Claiming this to be an armour door and open window
> is overreacting a bit.


Okay this is on-list because I have propagated disinformation
and I'm trying to propagate the correction:  for some reason
I, and apparently E. ALLEN SMITH, got a copy of Black Uni's
key which was devoid of signatures of any kind.  My
complaint was that this made it utterly open to MITM
attacks.  I was mistaken about Uni's key's lack of
signatures though, and I apologized for saying the above.


Actually, Black Uni's key via finger has two signatures (not
counting his own): Sandy Sandfort (whose key has no 
signatures, as far as my copy of it goes), and 
loki@obscura.com (whose key has 22 signatures, only 3 of 
which are from keys that I can find copies of not counting
loki's own).


more later,

Bryce




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2i
Comment: Auto-signed under Unix with 'BAP' Easy-PGP v1.1b2

iQB1AwUBMYSZZEjbHy8sKZitAQHB5wMA03m0NqNCMX0OjVdsQ+Kh7J6ZTPL3SJ/+
CqtrcrMly14cgBlDj4lWzXDZCHv179h8hyt0Y/zIG4fcnY+anUjFAN9vvUapqIxc
PkeH27XuCN1JfeJCH/eTiy0Hzf6+nN5J
=GbtJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

On Mon, 29 Apr 1996 bryce@digicash.com wrote:

> Actually, Black Uni's key via finger has two signatures (not
> counting his own): Sandy Sandfort (whose key has no 
> signatures, as far as my copy of it goes),

I had only one signature on my key.  It was Phil Zimmermann's, 
but it's one he has since revoked. 


 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Ya gotta get yourself connected, as the Stereo MC's said.


Unfortunately I can't see anyway to gain trust in this
pseudonym since I don't believe that the ostensible owner,
name of "Black Unicorn", understands about how to establish
a strong pseudonym in the Web O Trust.


I mean, I could explain it to him, but not even counting the
difficulties of communicating such complex concepts among
humans, there is the fact that if Mitch is here, he can
prevent the real Uni from seeing the explanation, and he can
act in Black Uni's place as if he understands.  Then he can
go through the necessary steps to increase our trust in his
pubkey, as if Uni were going through them.


There would be only one problem for Mitch:  there would be
some knowledge shared by the facade Uni and the rest of us
that was not shared by the real Uni and the rest of us.
Forever into the future whenever this knowledge came up in
conversation Mitch would have to break automated-active-attack
mode and go into acting mode to prevent us from realizing
that we remembered history differently.


Wouldn't be cool if we could somehow make much of our
conversation depend on that shared memory in some
non-automatible way?  Then we could just recurse, making
more and more of the conversation depend on previous
conversation in a non-automatible way.  Eventually all of
our conversation would have to be acted by a human MITM
instead of just falsely digitally authenticated by an
automated MITM...


more later,

Bryce

P.S.

- -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: 2.6.2i
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=5LFk
- -----END PGP MESSAGE-----

EALLENSMITH could have been included in the encryption but 
I couldn't find a PGP key for him.




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2i
Comment: Auto-signed under Unix with 'BAP' Easy-PGP v1.1b2

iQB1AwUBMYOVIEjbHy8sKZitAQGl0wMAoLEe5xqPMs9J2vclqbmN2QNCyXk4l3qH
g4TUVepq1gMlXXJ4w2Xae/XxsX7Ytu5aeNlkcUsLUgjtkAm63WAaJszgQGtLwqTI
poZ4wfv7DMZC0n9lXsfacrBtIaJCKLTj
=2e1i
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Replied: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 17:43:29 +0200
Replied: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Replied: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
Replied: cypherpunks@toad.com
Return-Path: unicorn@schloss.li
Received: from polaris.mindport.net (polaris.mindport.net [205.219.167.2]) by digicash.com (8.6.11/8.6.10) with ESMTP id JAA11303 for <bryce@digicash.com>; Thu, 25 Apr 1996 09:02:23 +0200
Received: from localhost (unicorn@localhost) by polaris.mindport.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA03059; Thu, 25 Apr 1996 03:01:57 -0400
Posted-Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 03:01:57 -0400
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 03:01:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
X-Sender: unicorn@polaris.mindport.net
To: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
cc: bryce@digicash.com, cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: arbiter/escrow agent for hire
In-Reply-To: <01I3X9N6RA1W8Y50LP@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.93.960425030044.3252P-100000@polaris.mindport.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Wed, 24 Apr 1996, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote:

> From:	IN%"bryce@digicash.com" 24-APR-1996 10:05:20.14
> 
> >1. Acceptable digital signature upon the "bet statement" 
> >from each bettor.  (Note that PGP signatures from PGP key
> >pairs which are not connected to me via the Web of Trust, or
> >which are not verifiable by me via an out-of-band
> >connection, are not acceptable digital signatures.  This is
> >because of the MITM attack problem, not because  I need True
> >Names to be connected to the signatures.)
> 
> 	IIRC, currently Black Unicorn doesn't have any signatures on
> his public key of others. Therefore, this requirement, while understandable,
> could cause a bit of a difficulty in the current situation.

Please obtain a copy of my current key by finger.

---
My preferred and soon to be permanent e-mail address:unicorn@schloss.li
"In fact, had Bancroft not existed,       potestas scientiae in usu est
Franklin might have had to invent him."    in nihilum nil posse reverti
00B9289C28DC0E55  E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information
Opp. Counsel: For all your expert testimony needs: jimbell@pacifier.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In list.cypherpunks, bryce@digicash.com writes:

> Unfortunately I can't see anyway to gain trust in this
> pseudonym since I don't believe that the ostensible owner,
> name of "Black Unicorn", understands about how to establish
> a strong pseudonym in the Web O Trust.

[12:09] 1 [c:\grab]:sendai# pgp -kvv unicorn@schloss.li
Pretty Good Privacy(tm) 2.6.2 - Public-key encryption for the masses.
(c) 1990-1994 Philip Zimmermann, Phil's Pretty Good Software. 11 Oct 94
Uses the RSAREF(tm) Toolkit, which is copyright RSA Data Security, Inc.
Distributed by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Export of this software may be restricted by the U.S. government.
Current time: 1996/04/28 17:10 GMT

Key ring: 'c:\glyph\pubring.pgp', looking for user ID "unicorn@schloss.li".
Type bits/keyID    Date       User ID
pub  2048/4E685D39 1995/03/26 Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
sig       5AC7B865             (Unknown signator, can't be checked)
sig       DCB75233             Sandy Sandfort <SSANDFORT@ATTMAIL.COM>
sig       4E685D39             Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
1 matching key found.

Looks like a good start to me.
- -- 
           Roy M. Silvernail     [ ]      roy@cybrspc.mn.org
PGP Public Key fingerprint =  31 86 EC B9 DB 76 A7 54  13 0B 6A 6B CC 09 18 B6
                Key available from pubkey@cybrspc.mn.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBMYOnwBvikii9febJAQHafQP9HY9bjBIBqlPg9NT+/K6kpcYwvJkJGhrF
NYqwwYPSJqHwCVs+BPnPrdvjPR/rkSqyBeKx2QNOF84HpZmAXn/URQ064DRI0Gug
w7VlotuuGfa8HMS/MQwOMDEu42jQJuDpQsibwkWeCvy8IZrgpjsyl86w2lKd1Gjf
GymvDoJ7j7U=
=DYms
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Sun, 28 Apr 1996 bryce@digicash.com wrote:

> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 
> Ya gotta get yourself connected, as the Stereo MC's said.
> 
> 
> Unfortunately I can't see anyway to gain trust in this
> pseudonym since I don't believe that the ostensible owner,
> name of "Black Unicorn", understands about how to establish
> a strong pseudonym in the Web O Trust.

(Sigh).  I'll say it yet a third time.  Get a current copy of my key which
is signed by at least three people on the web of trust.


---
My preferred and soon to be permanent e-mail address:unicorn@schloss.li
"In fact, had Bancroft not existed,       potestas scientiae in usu est
Franklin might have had to invent him."    in nihilum nil posse reverti
00B9289C28DC0E55  E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information
Opp. Counsel: For all your expert testimony needs: jimbell@pacifier.com

> (Sigh).  I'll say it yet a third time.  Get a current copy of my key which
> is signed by at least three people on the web of trust.

	As if this "web of trust" was actually worth something.

-- 
Sameer Parekh					Voice:   510-601-9777x3
Community ConneXion, Inc.			FAX:     510-601-9734
The Internet Privacy Provider			Dialin:  510-658-6376
http://www.c2.net/ (or login as "guest")		sameer@c2.net

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

 sameer@c2.org wrote:
(> Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li> wrote:)
> > (Sigh).  I'll say it yet a third time.  Get a current copy of my key which
> > is signed by at least three people on the web of trust.
> 
> 	As if this "web of trust" was actually worth something.


It is most certainly worth something, as long as the
participants exercise the necessary measures to detect and
correct any active attacks on it.  The primary reason that
the Web O Trust is ineffective at this point is the
prevalence of misunderstandings among users (including
cypherpunks) about its usage and its efficacy.


As an example of these prevalent misunderstandings, I submit
to you the fact that PGP keyservers do not use PGP, either
for encryption or authentication.  If you suggest it to them
(or indeed, to most cypherpunks) they will respond that it
would "do no good".  Ridiculous.


It's a shame really, since if we _did_ have the wits to
create a Web O Trust now, it would serve to prevent active
attacks in the future.


Hopefully the public key infrastructure people will come up
with something that will replace the WoT and will be more
understandable or acceptable to people.


In the meantime, I cannot have much confidence in the
security of my private communications with Black Unicorn,
which makes me hesitant to exchange money with him.


Unfortunate that cypherpunks are so ineffectual when it
comes to "social engineering" (not in the "social cracking"
sense).


Regards,

Bryce




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2i
Comment: Auto-signed under Unix with 'BAP' Easy-PGP v1.1b2

iQB1AwUBMYSB8kjbHy8sKZitAQEuhwL/YDwOJB9pFP2Fbj0DBMvN8byLm4O3XwTK
klt5SOkS4ahKoE04bzTAMb2HhyX4xGyGxJD/dbB0FxJSHRSpI5Th/6Jk6UNNQrMe
6GppN1HO2yHA5muxNxwWiERk0XGNtaFN
=jMKu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Mon, 29 Apr 1996 bryce@digicash.com wrote:
> 
> In the meantime, I cannot have much confidence in the
> security of my private communications with Black Unicorn,
> which makes me hesitant to exchange money with him.

That's ok, I prefer cash.

---
My preferred and soon to be permanent e-mail address:unicorn@schloss.li
"In fact, had Bancroft not existed,       potestas scientiae in usu est
Franklin might have had to invent him."    in nihilum nil posse reverti
00B9289C28DC0E55  E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information
Opp. Counsel: For all your expert testimony needs: jimbell@pacifier.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

 The entity calling itself 
 "Black Unicorn" <unicorn@schloss.li> probably wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Apr 1996 bryce@digicash.com wrote:
> > 
> > In the meantime, I cannot have much confidence in the
> > security of my private communications with Black Unicorn,
> > which makes me hesitant to exchange money with him.
> 
> That's ok, I prefer cash.


It _was_ going to be cash!  :-)


Bryce

P.S.  For the record, I'm just talking about my offer to
settle cypherpunk bets.  This is all hypothetical.  I'm not
actually exchanging any money with Uni.  I've never met him.
Whatever he's doing, I'm not involved.  You can't prove
anything.




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2i
Comment: Auto-signed under Unix with 'BAP' Easy-PGP v1.1b2

iQB1AwUBMYXpJkjbHy8sKZitAQGyZAMAs4O9+WN1WBtt3hXPgiE6BEiuuQmj/u6u
RMqG3WRlhG3kMfCHZ1ypfV2SCCHYxmbBTa+olVp2yIJ5Qan13Qvr4KwI+o1JN/KO
JLG9ShEF9Uk5sduAuYUK526QJYhhce4d
=SYeA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

So are there any arbiters out there who would deal in non-digital cash? Or
someone who would launder US$ to Ecash for a smalle fee? I'd like to
arbitrate a few minor disagreements with my 95% friend Declan. Clearly,
neither private email nor restrained public flames have worked for three
months.

(I don't have TIME for this shit...)

-rich
 http://www.c2.org/~rich/