From: iagoldbe@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Ian Goldberg)
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 95 14:54:48 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Questions/Comments on ecash protocol (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <v02120d00ace710acf043@[192.0.2.1]>
Message-ID: <49vu6v$j0j@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


In article <v02120d00ace710acf043@[192.0.2.1]>,
Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com> wrote:
>Hal wrote:
>[parts elided]
>
>>BTW since apparently both deposit and payment messages are not encrypted,
>>coins made out to "@" are in danger of being stolen both while en route
>>from customer to shop and from shop to bank.  This is significant from
>>the point of view of payee anonymous systems, which will need to use such
>>coins.  More encryption will be necessary when such coins are passed
>>around.
>
>Absolutely. Wildcard coins are stealable in transit. However, one might
>safely assume that transactions conducted using such coins be encrypted by
>other methods.
>
But do the current implementations support this?  Can Sam's Shop's ecash
client tell that the payment he just received was made out to "@", and
if so, should encrypt the deposit message to the bank?  What if Sam is not
around to enter his secret key?

   - Ian