The paper by Rivest on lottery tickets as micropayments, at: http://theory.lcs.mit.edu/~rivest/publications.html is a clever idea, but he mentioned something in passing at the end that I thought was very interesting in its own right. He wrote:
True anonymity of the user from the vendor is more costly, as it requires an intermediary (the vendor needs to have routing/delivery information for the goods sold). That third party could also intermediate the payments for the user - the user pays the intermediary, and the intermediary pays the vendor.
Anonymous cash is most useful in the context of anonymous communications. If you are achieving anonymity via "mix" technologies, like the remailers or Wei Dai's proposed PipeNet, then the same network which hides the communications path could hide the payment path. You pay the first mix in the chain, which pays the next, and so on until the person at the end receives payment. Even with a non-anonymous payment system, you get the effect of anonymity. With intermediaries like this, you could use, say, First Virtual's credit-card based payments. If you want to buy some information anonymously, you set up a remailer chain to send the request to FV. With that you include a payment to that first remailer, requesting forwarding. The remailer accepts the payment, processes the message, and when it forwards it, it sends along a payment of its own (from its own account) to the next remailer in the chain, again requesting forwarding. This continues until the last remailer forwards the message to the final recipient, making a payment of its own in response to the forwarding request. In order to figure out who paid whom, an observer would have to trace through the remailer chain. And if they could do that, they could follow the message too, breaking the anonymity. (I had proposed a similar idea of forwarded non-anonymous payments a couple of weeks ago, but that was specifically in the context of paying for remailers. Rivest's idea would extend this to a general payment scheme.) I see some obvious problems, but perhaps they can be patched up. The remailers would have to be honest and trustworthy (not to mention brave, clean, and reverent); if the payment somehow got lost en route it could be difficult to verify who had pocketed it. There is some anonymity lost by having all the remailers in the chain know how much is being paid, even if they don't know who is involved. If online payment schemes were used, they could leave traces which would allow after-the-fact tracing of the payment path (and therefore the message path). Despite this, the convenience barriers to the use of anonymous cash might make it worth looking into "payment remailers" (or web redirectors). As long as there are at least two forwarders in the chain you have a minimal level of anonymity, and your payments should be as anonymous as your communications. Hal