Re: e$ payee anonymity (Was: e$: Come aaaannnndddd Get it!)

[jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>]

At 11:35 PM 1/7/96 -0500, you wrote:

>Still working through my 10MB cpunks mail backlog; this one's from 
>November 17, 1995:
>
>jim bell writes [msg #0]:
>> It seems to me that this should be possible, within limits, if the potential
>> payee could generate a "blinded" note to be delivered to the payer by
>> anonymous means.  The payer could get the note certified by the bank,
>> possibly given an extra "blind" if necessary  (is this possible? Desirable?
>> Why not?) and then the resulting still-blinded but certified note is posted
>> (in encrypted form, I supposed) to the 'net so that only the payee can
>> decrypt and unblind it.
>
>I wrote:
># This sounds like a version of "Hey, I'll pay you $10, if you give me a ten
># dollar bill first." As I understand your protocol, Bob gives Alice an enote,
># then Alice gives Bob an enote. 
>[...]
>
>jim bell writes [msg #1]:
>> It sounds like you understand even less about the details of digital cash
>> than I do.
>> 
>> First, read the August 1992 issue of Scientific American, the article by
>> David Chaum.  He explains, with a certain amount of detail, how blinded
>> digital cash operates.  To become validated and worth money, it first has to
>> be electronically "written," blinded, and then signed by the bank.  Then it
>> is unblinded, at which point it can be spent.  
>> 
>> What I was saying is that the notes would be written by the payee, then
>> blinded by the payee, given to the payer, and then signed by the payer's
>> bank.  At this point, they are worth money, and they are then returned to
>> the payee, 
>[...]
>
>Aha, thanks for the elaboration. I was confused by your use of the term
>"note" to describe something that isn't in fact worth money, when you said
>"the potential payee could generate a "blinded" note to be delivered to the
>payer". It also helps that I haven't read much of the ecash(tm :) protocol 
>details :}
>
>Futplex <futplex@pseudonym.com>	

I'm quoting the whole thing since it's so old.  As I assume  you are aware, the reason I'm so interested in full payee/full payer anonymity for digital cash is that my idea, "Assassination Politics", requires it:  It is necessary to be able to reward a completely unknown person by a completely unknown person, in such a way that nobody can rat out the other person.  Even the presence of an intermediary (trusted) organization would be unnecessary if it were possible to GUARANTEE the offer of payment to the payee.  

As the idea is currently structured, the central organization collects the money, reports the donations, and makes the (continuing) publicized offer.  It publicizes enough information to prove to the average citizen that it is dealing fairly with all concerned.

Obviously, communication with the donors/guessors must be minimized/secured also, in such a way as to make detection of these people extremely difficult and ideally impossible.