NODE 170eac09No Subject
anonymous-remailer@shell.portal.comWed, 8 May 1996 11:25:01 +0800
Why not digitial "bearer" instruments be non-negotiable without
a given signature?
I suppose these wouldn't be "bearer" but whatever we call them,
doesn't this solve the double spending problem somewhat?
For example. Why not have the bank issue the note to an anonymous
entity who has a public key on record with the bank.
In the absence of a signature from the related secret key, the
instrument will not be honored.
The instrument can be converted to a bearer instrument by the holder
at any time by signing it over to noone as opposed to signing it over
to a named party or key. (Much like making a check payable to "cash")
The double spending problem is solved to the degree the key of the
intended payee is secure. No?
NODE 20e767ab"bearer" certificates
Moltar Ramone <jlasser@rwd.goucher.edu>Wed, 8 May 1996 13:51:49 +0800
On Tue, 7 May 1996 anonymous-remailer@shell.portal.com wrote:
> Why not digitial "bearer" instruments be non-negotiable without
> a given signature?
>
> I suppose these wouldn't be "bearer" but whatever we call them,
> doesn't this solve the double spending problem somewhat?
[ ... ]
> The instrument can be converted to a bearer instrument by the holder
> at any time by signing it over to noone as opposed to signing it over
> to a named party or key. (Much like making a check payable to "cash")
Not with a MITM. Mallet just signs the certificate first and turns it in,
before the other entity even receives it. The bank has no way to tell
which of those two certificates would be invalid... and the anonymous
entity gets screwed. Signed bearer certificates are great for
non-anonymous communication...
----------
Jon Lasser (410)494-3072 - Obscenity is a crutch for
jlasser@rwd.goucher.edu inarticulate motherfuckers.
http://www.goucher.edu/~jlasser/
Finger for PGP key (1024/EC001E4D) - Fuck the CDA.