From: futplex@pseudonym.com (Futplex)
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 1996 15:50:13 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com (Cypherpunks Mailing List)
Subject: Re: e$ payee anonymity (Was: e$: Come aaaannnndddd Get it!)
Message-ID: <199601080435.XAA20775@thor.cs.umass.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


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

Still working through my 10MB cpunks mail backlog; this one's from 
November 17, 1995:

jim bell writes [msg #0]:
> It seems to me that this should be possible, within limits, if the potential
> payee could generate a "blinded" note to be delivered to the payer by
> anonymous means.  The payer could get the note certified by the bank,
> possibly given an extra "blind" if necessary  (is this possible? Desirable?
> Why not?) and then the resulting still-blinded but certified note is posted
> (in encrypted form, I supposed) to the 'net so that only the payee can
> decrypt and unblind it.

I wrote:
# This sounds like a version of "Hey, I'll pay you $10, if you give me a ten
# dollar bill first." As I understand your protocol, Bob gives Alice an enote,
# then Alice gives Bob an enote. 
[...]

jim bell writes [msg #1]:
> It sounds like you understand even less about the details of digital cash
> than I do.
> 
> First, read the August 1992 issue of Scientific American, the article by
> David Chaum.  He explains, with a certain amount of detail, how blinded
> digital cash operates.  To become validated and worth money, it first has to
> be electronically "written," blinded, and then signed by the bank.  Then it
> is unblinded, at which point it can be spent.  
> 
> What I was saying is that the notes would be written by the payee, then
> blinded by the payee, given to the payer, and then signed by the payer's
> bank.  At this point, they are worth money, and they are then returned to
> the payee, 
[...]

Aha, thanks for the elaboration. I was confused by your use of the term
"note" to describe something that isn't in fact worth money, when you said
"the potential payee could generate a "blinded" note to be delivered to the
payer". It also helps that I haven't read much of the ecash(tm :) protocol 
details :}

Futplex <futplex@pseudonym.com>		"KC who?"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQEVAwUBMPCeyynaAKQPVHDZAQFDygf/bUtOQcyhz9p1a3SdmwW8z0+sLtIhTgpM
Ii3mmFiFPaKmUYwdQiRbUi8KVCIooZCWhY44NRDlcRUZJSYCy0E0vBoJmwIKEq7g
NMN5wvmoRhEnoezYMaI2bVW782cTN9RZy4MH2oRc8OARTrm1yGrLh31WN7iX9Uh3
hv6nDVPjVfSg7T1O5P4upN8UWEiLaEvCvzeKvdLZoIrNpWaMNsdUOgV9+IOv7ns7
NVYtfb3ZgURr3/kxpvRAMorW76+qpaDF9CH6us9bI4ZTsUMhoH4JfSTeNQ3XaSnC
QAZxpjfM3EVd79jF+djnliq+29bDnzMuOhpAefIBs6PQMq05gQfE0A==
=1aX0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----