From: “Don M. Kitchen” <don@cs.byu.edu>
To: Cypherpunks Mailing List <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Message Hash: 62ec6f42079495300a0601026914a72cb4b425e06817659dbfb7ba8a582c9d75
Message ID: <ML-1.3.1.807585540.6838.don@jacob.cs.byu.edu>
Reply To: <199510311940.OAA31415@opine.cs.umass.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1995-11-01 01:22:23 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 09:22:23 +0800
From: "Don M. Kitchen" <don@cs.byu.edu>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 09:22:23 +0800
To: Cypherpunks Mailing List <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: Re: ecash remailer
In-Reply-To: <199510311940.OAA31415@opine.cs.umass.edu>
Message-ID: <ML-1.3.1.807585540.6838.don@jacob.cs.byu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
> > perpetrator, let's see... it's Ed. Ed is now charged with theft and
> > has an expensive and uncertain legal experience ahead of him.
>
> Alice-frames-Ed situation is functionally equivalent to the Bob-robs-Charlie
> situation from the bank's perspective.
I suppose the word "receipt" might be handy to introduce into the entire
scheme. A dispute over who payed & who stole is solved with paperwork of some
sort. Although a digital signature is not necessarily valid (I don't even know
what the Utah Digital Signature Law does) but the bank, as rule-setter
is allowed to say that a digital receipt DOES bind the parties in some
way.
Don
Return to November 1995
Return to “sameer <sameer@c2.org>”