cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1995-11-22 - Re: Proving I’m not Bob.

Header Data

From: s1113645@tesla.cc.uottawa.ca
To: David Scheidt <david@math.earlham.edu>
Message Hash: 47d2ded1d69184801da8840cab19ec1ca92c0388b245ce6adc3ca0016e3e2fe5
Message ID: <Pine.3.89.9511211956.A45492-0100000@tesla.cc.uottawa.ca>
Reply To: <Pine.NXT.3.91.951121142858.1144A-100000@litoria>
UTC Datetime: 1995-11-22 00:42:52 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 08:42:52 +0800

Raw message

From: s1113645@tesla.cc.uottawa.ca
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 08:42:52 +0800
To: David Scheidt <david@math.earlham.edu>
Subject: Re: Proving I'm not Bob.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.NXT.3.91.951121142858.1144A-100000@litoria>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9511211956.A45492-0100000@tesla.cc.uottawa.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




On Tue, 21 Nov 1995, David Scheidt wrote:

> What is this system?  I can't think of any system that wouldn't work if 
> rearranged so that instead of proving you aren't Bob, you simply don't 
> prove that you are.  It is true that they are not isomorphic, and that 
> could be a problem in some situations, but I don't see this as one of them.

Hal and Futplex pretty much described it. I figured a proof of non-identity
(if possible) would have saved one hell of a lot of messy authentication
in those cases when there is only one possible cheater (due to economic 
incentives) with many possible pseudonyms (or friends).

Thread