From: Adam Shostack <adam@homeport.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 18:48:35 -0800 (PST)
To: tcmay@got.net (Tim May)
Subject: Re: anonymity and e-cash
In-Reply-To: <199702130044.QAA10501@toad.com>
Message-ID: <199702130244.VAA08897@homeport.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


	In fact, the Identity Agnostic bits were Doug's, and they were
focused on the idea that a bank that did not implement blinding could
be used in an anonymous fashion by someone willing to violate the
patents.

	/*  Blind(*coin) here would violate Chaum's patent, so we
	 *  can't do that 
	 */

Adam

Tim May wrote:

| At 1:19 PM -0800 2/12/97, Lee Tien wrote (on the Cypherpunks@toad.com list):

| In August of '95, Doug Barnes released a long article on "Identity
| Agnostic" systems. (His article is no longer at the www.communities.com Web
| site, so I can't refer you to it. Maybe he'll post it again.)

| In fact, Ian showed, the Chaum patents on blinding are NOT USED by the
| Mint/Bank; only the CUSTOMER uses the blinding patents (and the MERCHANT in
| some cases, not in other cases). This means that "anyone a mint" does not
| violate any of the Chaum/Digicash patents, and "mint clients" are likely to
| be written by third parties. (The _customer_ is presumably on the honor
| system to abide by the Chaum patents...except the patents are only being
| licensed to banks...go figure.)
| 
| (This is where, as I recall, Doug's "agnostic" system came in...it is
| possible his thinking was similar to Ian's...I don't have Doug's paper
| handy.)



-- 
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
					               -Hume