From: Aleph One <aleph1@dfw.net>
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 1995 04:02:55 +0800
To: Cypherpunks Mailing List <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: Re: ecash remailer
In-Reply-To: <199510311940.OAA31415@opine.cs.umass.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.90.951031201550.9466A-100000@dfw.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Ahh yes, but but Ed would not spend those coins, he would use them to 
launder others peoples coins such that any person laundering coins thrugh
Ed may randombly get a coin, even Alice and Charlie! Whats the bank to do 
when they see the coins bein spent by a few hundred diferent people.

Aleph One / aleph1@dfw.net
http://underground.org/
KeyID 1024/948FD6B5 
Fingerprint EE C9 E8 AA CB AF 09 61  8C 39 EA 47 A8 6A B8 01 

On Tue, 31 Oct 1995, Futplex wrote:

> Jumping in hastily:
> 
> It seems to me that Ed faces a larger problem if the above scenario turns
> out to be a viable attack. Consider the following sequence: Alice and
> Charlie decide to get some (payee-anonymous) currency laundromat in hot 
> water. Alice (payer-anonymously) washes some coins at the laundromat.
> Con-man Charlie claims he didn't get paid for some fictional transaction with
> Alice. Alice complains to the bank, and the rest proceeds as before. The
> Alice-frames-Ed situation is functionally equivalent to the Bob-robs-Charlie
> situation from the bank's perspective.
> 
> -Futplex <futplex@pseudonym.com>
>