From: iang@cs.berkeley.edu (Ian Goldberg)
Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 04:53:27 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Is Chaum's System Traceable or Untraceable?
In-Reply-To: <01I50K5LNPQG8Y4X9G@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
Message-ID: <4o205r$7br@abraham.cs.berkeley.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


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

In article <01I50K5LNPQG8Y4X9G@mbcl.rutgers.edu>,
E. ALLEN SMITH <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU> wrote:
>From:  IN%"iang@cs.berkeley.edu" 22-MAY-1996 14:51:29.42
>
>>In the "normal" protocol, the payee has to go online.  In the "anon" protocol,
>>the payer has to go online.  Since you don't want to go online when you
>>walk into a shop, you can pay the shop with the "normal" protocol, and
>>the shop gives you change with the "anon" protocol.
>
>>That way, you never need to go online, and your identity is never compromised.
>
>       However, the shop's still is, although the bank might not be able to
>determine as much about how much income is coming in. OTOH, we're talking about
>a physical shop situation; I'm not sure how critical it is to have shop
>anonymnity with payor cooperation for this, since the payor can break it
>anyway.

Ah.  I see I was misunderstood.  The goal was not to make the shop anonymous,
but rather to be able to provide change to an anonymous payer.

   - Ian

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

iQCVAwUBMaSD4kZRiTErSPb1AQEa5gP/V1hAcycmBO9MMqQUng3ZdHejVgHLCa7J
1KHQgVKjJGRpUUCcARo0Yl3wtwRc2sX6TboUewVxBGAg6BLFzwwGY8D1ZgLaDk3D
ktfAn3H15QF/qsdDQVyixu5P37ly1NEeU9ff5UO/KggvwGXs8jZzBXLdsvQWgbKl
Ks5qQCwd/4I=
=Fkgx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----