Nomen Nescio wrote:
Ben Laurie writes:
Note that the scheme as described (and corrected) is vulnerable to marking by the bank, and so is not anonymous. This is discussed and fixed in my paper on Lucre (http://anoncvs.aldigital.co.uk/lucre/theory2.pdf).
Actually the scheme described based on Chaum's talk (corrected for probable typos) is essentially what you describe in your paper as the Type II Defence, in section 5. Your analysis shows that it is not vulnerable to marking and is anonymous.
Speaking of anonymous, you should give credit in your paper to Anonymous for discovering the possibility of marking Lucre coins, in a coderpunks posting at http://www.mail-archive.com/coderpunks@toad.com/msg02186.html, and for inventing the Type II Defence, both in the posting above and amplifed at http://www.mail-archive.com/coderpunks@toad.com/msg02323.html.
It may seem pointless to credit anonymous postings, but it makes the historical record more clear.
Anonymous _is_ creditted, but I can add the specific URLs. Cheers, Ben. -- http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html http://www.thebunker.net/ Available for contract work. "There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@wasabisystems.com