From: daw@bamako.CS.Berkeley.EDU (David A Wagner)
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 11:33:56 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: More FUD from First Virtual [NOISE]
In-Reply-To: <0kn1Q6CMc50e02irtU@nsb.fv.com>
Message-ID: <199512112215.RAA13271@bb.hks.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <0kn1Q6CMc50e02irtU@nsb.fv.com>,
Nathaniel Borenstein <nsb@nsb.fv.com> wrote:
> It's fundamentally different because FV (unlike all the other systems,
> to my knowledge) is a "closed loop" financial instrument.
     [ ... FV is inherently harder to crack than systems which actually
           use encryption, etc. etc., NB claims ... ]

Is it just me, or does this sound like a challenge?

Personally, I'd much rather see a true e-cash system (like Digicash's)
succeed than some pay-by-cleartext-email non-anonymous system.

Maybe Sameer will create a Hack FV page :-)

Or maybe NB will offer a $1000 bug bounty to anyone who can successfully
forge a transaction in FV's system (since it's so foolproof)...
- ---
[This message has been signed by an auto-signing service.  A valid signature
means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the
signature and forwarded.]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Gratis auto-signing service

iQBFAwUBMMytkyoZzwIn1bdtAQEY+AF/bGZOi37IlT0LTWz8zhMFM4JqZ2iSchrm
Z3abBPc1MZxxDuG06NT3FCft9+eM13Fb
=yXp4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----