At 8:30 AM +0200 on 4/11/02, Anonymous exfumed out of Vienna again:
> [By forwarding this mail to the DBS list,
Done...
> Robert Hettinga agrees that
> he is an arrogant,
Check...
> obnoxious,
Check...
> power-hungry
Check...
> asshole
Now yew wait jes' a gol'darn minute, here,
pardne
[By forwarding this mail to the DBS list, Robert Hettinga agrees that
he is an arrogant, obnoxious, power-hungry asshole with no moral
integrity whatsoever.]
Adam Back wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 06:17:06PM +0200, Anonymous wrote:
> > And second, because the deposit is unlinkable to the wi
On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, Adam Back wrote:
> You don't need the minter's secret key to identify the double-spender.
> Anyone who happens to see two coin transcripts answering different
> challenges with the same coin private key can recover all the
> attributes of the coin, including the identity attr
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On 9 Apr 2002 at 16:54, Ken Brown wrote:
>
> > But paper money is such a 20th-century thing! These days we're slowly
> > drifting back to higher value metal coins (2 pounds out for a few years
> > now, 5 pounds coming soon I think). Much more fun. Feels like real
> >
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 06:45:43AM -0700, Mike Rosing wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Adam Back wrote:
> > If you use the normal approach of putting the identity in the coin,
> > you can't double-spend anonymously.
>
> But it's not until the coin goes back online, you need the minter's secret
> key
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Morlock Elloi wrote:
> Apart for few cypherpunks, People With Real Money and mafia, all of whom
> already have all the anonymity they want, sheeple is handled by corporations
> whose income depends on non-anonymity. I don't see a market pressure for anon
> replacement for cred
> > And how will a regular consumer, with no math degree, verify that
> > her coins are indeed partially blinded ? Trust the bank ? No shit.
>
> The regular consumer will rely on a third party to examine the source
> to see that they securely and correctly implement the protocols to
> assure priv
> You can't outright counterfeit technically as the recipient of each
> coin checks that it's correctly formed, and authenticated by the bank,
> and that the chain of spends are all bound together. By doing this
> the user is assured that either the coin will not be double-spent, or
> the bank wi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> Mike Rosing[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Ken Brown wrote:
> > I'd rather have stiff cards than floppy paper ones. At least you can put
> > them into the slot of a machine easily.
>
> But with an RF tag you'd not even have to pull
Peter Trei writes:
> Speaking for myself and a few friends and relations, we'd
> be perfectly happy to use them, if they were available.
A good place to get Sacagawea dollars is from the stamp machine at your
local post office. Put in a $20 bill and buy as small an amount of
stamps as you can, a
On 9 Apr 2002 at 16:54, Ken Brown wrote:
> But paper money is such a 20th-century thing! These days we're slowly
> drifting back to higher value metal coins (2 pounds out for a few years
> now, 5 pounds coming soon I think). Much more fun. Feels like real
> treasure! Less of the floppy stuff, we
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Trei, Peter wrote:
> I was living in Britain (and of an allowance-recieving age) when
> decimalization
> occured. While we lost the big penny, we gained the 50p piece. In those
> days,
> it was a large, heavy, seven-sided coin, bigger than a US half-dollar, and
> worth
> $1.20
Ben Laurie wrote:
> Anonymous wrote:
> > It's not just an extra feature; an off-line system inherently requires
> > users to identify themselves to the bank at withdrawal time. It cannot
> > allow users to anonymously exchange coins at the bank. So it has an
> > inherent lack of anonymity which
At 8:37 AM +0200 on 4/9/02, Some Anonymous Flatualist emitted the following
bit of flammable gas out of an Austrian remailer somewhere:
> And BTW permission is NOT granted to
> forward this or any part of it to the DBS list because Hettinga is an
> asshole who kicks people off his list for spit
> Mike Rosing[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Ken Brown wrote:
>
> > I'd rather have stiff cards than floppy paper ones. At least you can put
> > them into the slot of a machine easily.
>
> But with an RF tag you'd not even have to pull it out of your pocket :-)
>
Putting RF T
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Anonymous wrote:
> Are you saying that if Alice pays Bob, he can anonymously exchange the
> coins and end up with new fresh coins with ALICE's identity in them?
> That's great, he can double spend all he wants and she ends up going
> to the pokey. No thanks.
Brands' paper th
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 08:37:05AM +0200, Anonymous wrote:
> [Copied to Adam so he doesn't have to wait for some moderator to get
> off his fat ass and approve it.
The LNE CDR isn't moderated in the usual sense.
However, postings from new users[1] don't go through until I look at them
(since ab
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Ken Brown wrote:
> I'd rather have stiff cards than floppy paper ones. At least you can put
> them into the slot of a machine easily.
But with an RF tag you'd not even have to pull it out of your pocket :-)
> But paper money is such a 20th-century thing! These days we're sl
Adam Back wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 08:37:05AM +0200, Anonymous wrote:
> > an off-line system inherently requires
> > users to identify themselves to the bank at withdrawal time.
>
> Not quite inherently, there are other things you could do. (This has
> been discussed before I think in [
Mike Rosing wrote:
[...]
> It'd be cool to have electronic paper bills - flexable/cloth electronics
> where the value of the bill is variable. At each transaction, the bill
> reduces the amount it has (plain old smart card stuff) but it'd have
> the look and feel of paper money.
I'd rather
Adam Back wrote:
[...snip...]
> Another example would be having to give a deposit to get mobile phone
> for people with poor credit ratings. Also in Europe pay as you go,
> cash only mobile phone usage is popular due to credit elegibility
> reasons also I think. You can plunk down a 10 pound n
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Adam Back wrote:
> You can't outright counterfeit technically as the recipient of each
> coin checks that it's correctly formed, and authenticated by the bank,
> and that the chain of spends are all bound together. By doing this
> the user is assured that either the coin will
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Adam Back wrote:
> Tranferable off-line coins allow all kinds of cool anonymity features
> as described above, I also argued above that the linkability
> deficiency can somewhat defended against.
>
> And transferable off-line coins add yet more flexibility, while again
> not
Anonymous gives some comments on some deficiencies in the properties
of the transferable ecash schemes to date:
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 04:15:09AM +0200, Anonymous wrote:
> [...]
> And second, because they grow, it is possible to tell exactly how
> many hands a particular coin has passed through
The issue with off-line cash is this: has the coin being offered already
been spent?
With on-line cash, the offered coin is immediately deposited at the bank,
hence doubly-spent coins are detected instantly. With off-line cash
this cannot be done because by definition there is no connection to t
25 matches
Mail list logo
