From: owner-cypherpunks@toad.com
To: N/A
Message Hash: 59e22300bcfe060a0c9aa6f6f715d683469ed4755b5897c138242704302e8a63
Message ID: <QQadzx28893.199602221125@relay3.UU.NET>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1996-02-22 11:31:26 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 19:31:26 +0800
From: owner-cypherpunks@toad.com
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 19:31:26 +0800
Subject: No Subject
Message-ID: <QQadzx28893.199602221125@relay3.UU.NET>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
On Thu, 22 Feb 1996, Robert Hettinga wrote:
> >I'm sufficiently impressed with the arguments against name credentials
> >that Carl Ellison has made that I'm looking seriously into systems
> >that don't do any sort of conventional certificate binding at all...
>
> ... and I bet, Wei Dai's contentions to the contrary, that they'll be
> *cheaper* to use than those which do certificate binding, all other things
> being equal.
You got my position completely backward on this. I've always supported
Carl's arguments in the past on this issue (for example see the tread
"subjective names..."). You may be thinking of what I said about the
cost of defeating traffic analysis.
The natural state of the Net seems to be a kind of semi-anonymity.
Trying to push it in either direction (complete traceability or
anonymity) is costly.
Wei Dai
Return to February 1996
Return to “owner-cypherpunks@toad.com”
1996-02-22 (Thu, 22 Feb 1996 19:31:26 +0800) - No Subject - owner-cypherpunks@toad.com