[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Single Value Pseudonyms
> Karl Barrus posted this, and I've been meaning to respond to it.
> Basically Karl's scheme doesn't work. With any cut-and-choose
> protocol, there must be some assurance that the two things offered
What? It doesn't work? Care to elaborate?
I mean, a person can satisfy to any degree desired that the last
unblinded document is of a particular value.
I agree that it becomes real expensive to do so, and for digital
banking purposes, there are several alternatives: 1) all cash is of
same denomination, 2) different exponents for different
denominations, 3) different keys for different denominations.
I think I mentioned the application towards digital cash is a bit
forced because of the above. The real point is in avoiding signing
a blinded document that is later unblinded to reveal something
undesirable, in which case the signature and the document signed
have value. The application of cut-and-choose I described applies
best when for some reason (poor choices of the bank?) the document
itself contains value, like the denomination it represents.
--
Karl L. Barrus: [email protected]
keyID: 5AD633 hash: D1 59 9D 48 72 E9 19 D5 3D F3 93 7E 81 B5 CC 32
"One man's mnemonic is another man's cryptography"
- my compilers prof discussing file naming in public directories