On Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 04:28:58PM -0500, Adam Shostack wrote:
> Following which, Alice pulls out the pre-dated revocation certificate,
> and generates confusion as to the validity of Bob's key change message.
I guess we would need a distributed public registry of key
change/revocation messages
On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 07:53:02PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Even this is not a scalar. Since reputation cannot be bought
> and sold, the idea that it is worth a specific well defined amount is
> false.
If you own a nym, you can easily sell its reputation. Just give the
private key to th
On Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 03:05:18PM -0800, Tim May wrote:
> For many years some of us have argued strongly for "reputation" as a
> core concept. Someone, perhaps even one of our own, even coined the
> phrase "reputation capital."
>
> Reputation is an easily understandable concept which explains
On Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 04:25:05AM -0500, dmolnar wrote:
> In view of the recent thread ("That 70's Crypto Show") turning into yet
> another call for protocol building blocks -- and Wei Dai pointing out very
> sensibly the problems involved in turning protocols into buil
On Thu, Dec 28, 2000 at 12:01:20PM -0500, Tim May wrote:
> Probably the most basic motivation Eric Hughes and I had for calling
> together a bunch of Bay Area folks in '92 was because, in a 3-day
> series of talks we'd had earlier in the spring, we concluded that a
> lot of academic crypto was
On Mon, Nov 06, 2000 at 05:21:34PM -0500, Adam Back wrote:
> Adam Shostack made the comment about insufficiency of padding in
> PipeNet you're referring to.
Sorry about that.
> The other thing we could do is move content inside the network -- much
> of the traffic analysis material comes from th
On Sun, Nov 05, 2000 at 10:11:54PM -0500, Adam Back wrote:
> For those that don't know about PipeNet Wei has a description here
> [1]. PipeNet is a synchronous mix-net where users stay connected and
> consume bandwidth 24x365 to avoid revealing when they are using it.
>
> PipeNet's synchronous b
On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 12:10:17PM -0400, Robert Guerra wrote:
> I guess this confirms the info Mike Shaver mentioned the June Toronto
> Cypherpunks meeting.
>
> now with part of the code "out"...i'd like to hear what people have to say
> (good & bad) about it.
Hard to believe it takes an open
On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 10:04:06PM -0400, Tim May wrote:
> I don't know. There have been no peer reviews of the underlying
> model. Considering the effort which has gone into analzying Mix nets
> and DC Nets to uncover weaknesses and to find how collusion can
> defeat untraceability, the lack o
David Molnar Wrote:
> Anyway, recipient-hiding is most obviously useful when public bulletin
> boards are involved. I'm not so sure it's useful between remailers, since
> the underlying transport protocol will tend to reveal the ID of the next
> hop anyway...but it strikes me as something to have
On Sun, May 07, 2000 at 01:27:31PM -0400, dmolnar wrote:
> 1) is the term "indeterministic cryptosystem" formally
> defined anywhere?
It sounds kind of like "probabilistic encryption" which is a standard
term. Maybe they're the same thing?
> 2) has anyone followed up on "How t
On Tue, Mar 28, 2000 at 04:16:39PM -0500, Peter Gutmann wrote:
> (For people who don't know what EMBASSY is, it's a kind of combination of
> Clipper and DIVX, although recently they've tried to deemphasise this since
> noone was buying it - see earlier posts to cypherpunks on this topic. Maybe
12 matches
Mail list logo
