1994-03-26 - DIGICASH:Re: observer chips

Header Data

From: wcs@anchor.ho.att.com (bill.stewart@pleasantonca.ncr.com +1-510-484-6204)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: d03d8e387d80359a41e4ac3f584ff4909fbf17ba0679a6b3bc08cdd6bdf6e086
Message ID: <9403260903.AA18256@anchor.ho.att.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1994-03-26 08:27:33 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 26 Mar 94 00:27:33 PST

Raw message

From: wcs@anchor.ho.att.com (bill.stewart@pleasantonca.ncr.com +1-510-484-6204)
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 94 00:27:33 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: DIGICASH:Re: observer chips
Message-ID: <9403260903.AA18256@anchor.ho.att.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


>  I have always been skeptical of this observer-chip approach, because it
>  wasn't clear that it was feasible to make a tamper-resistant chip
>  economically, and because the specialized hardware that would be
>  required would prevent the system from being used on widely-available PCs.

Well, the government pretends they can do a tamper-proof chip,
complete with wiretap keys installed by the wizards behind the curtain,
for $36.  That's $26 for the chip in qty 10,000, plus a subsidized $10 for
tapping service and key installation.  I thought Mykotronx's press releases 
had sounded more like they wanted $36 themselves, and I don't know the
price for VLSI Inc's tamper-proof technology, but it may not be far off.
As far as interfaces go, PCMCIA are nice, but there's not much data to
transfer in most digicash exchanges, so a dumb cheap serial interface
may be more realistic, since everything supports it.

		Bill Stewart





Thread