From: Mikolaj Habryn <dichro@tartarus.uwa.edu.au>
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 94 05:59:27 PST
To: mpd@netcom.com (Mike Duvos)
Subject: Re: Whoa, now... (was Re: Digital Cash)
In-Reply-To: <199403270126.RAA16574@mail.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <199403271500.XAA09142@lethe.uwa.edu.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


> If I may make a small correction here, I suggested a tamperproof software 
> module could be used in an offline system to process transactions in a 
> way which prevented "ANONYMOUS double spending".  This is not the same as 
> preventing double spending, although in a system where reputations 
> matter, it has a certain deterrent effect.
> 
> > :That's the point.  Mikolaj was _never_ referring to cryptographic security.
> > :He was pointing out how security through obscuring algorithms can never be
> > :considered reliable.
> 
> Obscuring the operation of an algorithm inside a tamperproof module isn't
> security through obscurity any more than obscuring plaintext by
> encipherment is security through obscurity.  

	OK, just to go and match the pattern of mis-understandings in 
this thread, i'd appreciate it if you posted a detailed version of your 
plan (sorry if you've done it before, but the 'd' key and I are old 
friends...oops), as i probably just read the bit that leapt out at me and 
ingnored the rest. Then i'll try to punch a few holes in it... :)

MJH

*       *       Mikolaj J. Habryn
                dichro@tartarus.uwa.edu.au
    *           "Life begins at '040."
                PGP Public key available by finger
    *           "Spaghetti code means job security!"