From: “Perry E. Metzger” <perry@piermont.com>
To: frantz@netcom.com (Bill Frantz)
Message Hash: 47b2c40437bd98803f85d4200357c25411635da37337e3bb460c5ac6383c1710
Message ID: <199604101321.JAA04966@jekyll.piermont.com>
Reply To: <199604091857.LAA06933@netcom9.netcom.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-04-14 02:03:57 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 10:03:57 +0800
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 10:03:57 +0800
To: frantz@netcom.com (Bill Frantz)
Subject: Re: Tense visions of future imperfect
In-Reply-To: <199604091857.LAA06933@netcom9.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <199604101321.JAA04966@jekyll.piermont.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Bill Frantz writes:
> > Garfinkel described it like this:
[...]
> > "This counterfeit currency looked just like the real thing,
> > except it was a fraud. She even found some of it -- a
> > digital dollar that was signed and sealed by the US
> > government's secret key, yet had a serial number that had
> > never been issued. The money that was being made was on the
> > Net. It was everywhere and nowhere. And it was encrypted,
> > so that we wouldn't even know it if we found it. Last
> > month, we estimate, the total fraud was up to $900,000 a
> > month, and it is increasing still."
>
> I don't see how this third scam would work in a system such as DigiCash
> which uses online clearing. Unissued serial numbers would be refused when
> presented for clearing.
The whole point of DigiCash is that its blind to the issuing bank; it
doesn't know any serial numbers. However, Garfinkel's journalism is
faulty, because the bank would never see "unissued serial numbers" in
a system like DigiCash.
Perry
Return to April 1996
Return to ““Perry E. Metzger” <perry@piermont.com>”