-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In list.cypherpunks, solman@MIT.EDU writes:
I don't agree on this point. I prefer license based e-cash which is modified on each transaction (and unfortunatelly gets slightly bigger -- the downside of this method).
I'm not clear on this point. Is this an audit trail built into the e-cash? I'm not so sure that's a Good Thing.
When properly implemented, nobody can deduce anything from the "audit trail" other than the validity of the e-cash. If somebody cheats, only the cheater (and people who reuse his money without checking first) is revealed. I should note that the Japanese system that I started with does not quite cut it in this reguard. A tiny bit of probabilistic encryption goes a long way towards imporving their system. (Vendors and banks could otherwise deduce things when they saw the same license). On a more important note, I believe that in one of the papers on my to-read list for this weeked, Chaum demonstrates that e-cash can not be transferable unless it grows bigger. Otherwise you have to give it back to the bank and get a new one each time it is used. Given this, I think that it is highly desireable for us to accept the increasing size of the e-cash and maintain its transferability. JWS