From: futplex@pseudonym.com (Futplex)
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 05:33:03 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com (Cypherpunks Mailing List)
Subject: Re: ecash remailer
In-Reply-To: <199510311703.JAA14785@jobe.shell.portal.com>
Message-ID: <199510311940.OAA31415@opine.cs.umass.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Hal writes:
[suggesting a problem with Ed the Currency Cleaner]
> What about this, though: Alice did not mean to pay Bob, but rather
> Charlie, and Bob stole the coins.  He launders them through Ed's
> service.  Charlie never got the cash, and Alice complains to the bank
> that the coins were stolen.  The bank says, fine, we can identify the
> perpetrator, let's see... it's Ed.  Ed is now charged with theft and
> has an expensive and uncertain legal experience ahead of him.

Jumping in hastily:

It seems to me that Ed faces a larger problem if the above scenario turns
out to be a viable attack. Consider the following sequence: Alice and
Charlie decide to get some (payee-anonymous) currency laundromat in hot 
water. Alice (payer-anonymously) washes some coins at the laundromat.
Con-man Charlie claims he didn't get paid for some fictional transaction with
Alice. Alice complains to the bank, and the rest proceeds as before. The
Alice-frames-Ed situation is functionally equivalent to the Bob-robs-Charlie
situation from the bank's perspective.

-Futplex <futplex@pseudonym.com>