From: Andreas Bogk <andreas@artcom.de>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 95 13:10:01 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: digital cash and identity disclosure
Message-ID: <m0t5ej6-0002ebC@horten>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


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

Hi...

In the Cyphernomicon, section 12.6.6, Tim May writes:

             - Chaum went to great lengths to develop system which
                preserve anonymity for single-spending instances, but
                which break anonymity and thus reveal identity for double-
                spending instances. I'm not sure what market forces
                caused him to think about this as being so important, but
                it creates many headaches. Besides being clumsy, it
                require physical ID, it invokes a legal system to try to
                collect from "double spenders," and it admits the
                extremely serious breach of privacy by enabling stings.
                For example, Alice pays Bob a unit of money, then quickly
                Alice spends that money before Bob can...Bob is then
                revealed as a "double spender," and his identity revealed
                to whomver wanted it...Alice, IRS, Gestapo, etc. A very
                broken idea. Acceptable mainly for small transactions.

But as far as I got Chaums idea, Alice would not reveal Bobs identity,
but rather her own. Am I missing a point here?

Andreas


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQCVAgUBMIVd0EyjTSyISdw9AQFvAQP/bLDQV1JEIXPlUxbUqMVffv62YQf4j6Wu
IkTr0qMjP4PLpLZFyKus+uf3JQIYsK660LdDykmcKafdYMH8LW6Z4SxDkkd2HwyY
Hsf5xW3aIfnyQ5bPcI5dhWz4hao9RJ23Hc7sjzvHVgTcrQCLf7ADixhPCm7xnq3n
YffnXg5slHU=
=pLXN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----