From: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 19:58:19 +0800
To: tcmay@got.net
Subject: Re: Is Chaum's System Traceable or Untraceable?
Message-ID: <01I4WVDLFCHK8Y5FKU@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


From:	IN%"tcmay@got.net" 18-MAY-1996 14:30:54.29

>I agree with Jim Bell on this completely. I don't know if Chaum has been
>seduced by the Dark Side, or is looking to get digicash widely deployed by
>"respectable" institutions, or is telling the truth (that his system
>_never_ provided for real untraceability), but I know that Cypherpunks
>should always strive for full untraceability.

	Given what I've picked up (including what institutions he's chosen to
deal with, the behavior of these institutions - MTB's dropping of merchants
disapproved of by Mrs. Grundy et al, and other information), I am willing to
bet that the second is the priority. Once his patents run out, all bets are
off... but it looks like he's wanting to get ecash accepted before then.
Otherwise, everyone may be using various non-anonymous (or GAKed anonymous)
methods like credit card encryption.
	Unless I'm reading the ecash protocols wrong, using the current version
of the software some degree of payee anonymnity is possible.
	-Allen