[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: non-transferable signatures (Re: Crypto Kong penetration.) (fwd)

Jim Choate <[email protected]> writes:
> Adam Back <[email protected]> writes:
> > when for example the USG adds cypherpunks to it's growing list of
> > terrorist organisations.
> We're an 'organization'? Where is my monthly newsletter?....;)

There are a bunch of people subscribed to a mailing list called
cypherpunks.  There is no organisation, this is an anarchy, as can be
readily observed :-) I only used `list of terrorist organisations'
because I think that is the US government term for their little black

> In general I have to agree with Adam though, in the real world with
> ubiquitous and surreptitious monitoring signing documents is actualy a
> liability in many if not most cases. About the only exception is dealing
> with a contractual relationship.

Even for contracts I think you would be better off not connecting to
your meat space persona if you could help it.  eg. Use a nym, post a
bond with a high reputation cyberspacial arbitration service, use
designated verifier non transferable signatures to allow the
arbitration service and other party to the transaction to verify your
signature, but to make the signature non-transferable to other

Now officially an EAR violation...
Have *you* exported RSA today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/

print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\[email protected]{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<>