From: iang@cs.berkeley.edu (Ian Goldberg)
Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 10:07:57 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Is Chaum's System Traceable or Untraceable?
In-Reply-To: <01I53GAYSQUC8Y4Z90@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
Message-ID: <4ofo56$hbv@abraham.cs.berkeley.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


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

In article <01I53GAYSQUC8Y4Z90@mbcl.rutgers.edu>,
E. ALLEN SMITH <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU> wrote:
>From:      IN%"iang@cs.berkeley.edu" 23-MAY-1996 13:56:31.71
>
>>Ah.  I see I was misunderstood.  The goal was not to make the shop anonym=
ous,
>>but rather to be able to provide change to an anonymous payer.
>
>      I had thought that the basic purpose of the fully anon system was just
>that - full anonymnity for payer and payee. Under your suggestion, the shop
>gives up this anonymnity under these circumstances in order to be able to =
make
>change. I'm not sure if I would call that a very good tradeoff...
>      -Allen


Yes, that's the _basic_ purpose, but the "anon" protocol has several
useful "secondary" properties as well.  This (providing change to an
anonymous payer) is one of them.

   - Ian

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBMatj1kZRiTErSPb1AQH0PQP/U6SvqgUew4oDQjo5U4mRJurDm0Co+3va
YCQ6TvqfkkvQDMu3HtFqolBKa6CAhJXz3RFq1mEV50F/VvafD45Utui6btH4JSCh
1xljSeGO6aF7cFW5NhSe/r8oW1IkwQbb6vkJRZQlt2fYr1qTjYp2+PmJsHXbIqk+
z1aV/VYiJdI=
=r7eJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----