From: Moltar Ramone <jlasser@rwd.goucher.edu>
Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 13:51:49 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: "bearer" certificates
In-Reply-To: <199605071754.KAA04543@jobe.shell.portal.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960507210434.3059C-100000@rwd.goucher.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Tue, 7 May 1996 anonymous-remailer@shell.portal.com wrote:

> Why not digitial "bearer" instruments be non-negotiable without
> a given signature?
> 
> I suppose these wouldn't be "bearer" but whatever we call them,
> doesn't this solve the double spending problem somewhat?
[ ... ]
> The instrument can be converted to a bearer instrument by the holder
> at any time by signing it over to noone as opposed to signing it over
> to a named party or key.  (Much like making a check payable to "cash")

Not with a MITM. Mallet just signs the certificate first and turns it in, 
before the other entity even receives it. The bank has no way to tell 
which of those two certificates would be invalid... and the anonymous 
entity gets screwed. Signed bearer certificates are great for 
non-anonymous communication...


----------
Jon Lasser (410)494-3072                         - Obscenity  is a crutch  for
jlasser@rwd.goucher.edu                            inarticulate motherfuckers.
http://www.goucher.edu/~jlasser/
Finger for PGP key (1024/EC001E4D)               - Fuck the CDA.