-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In message <Pine.3.89.9510180711.B37215-0100000@aix2.uottawa.ca>, s1018954@aix2.uottawa.ca said:
On Wed, 18 Oct 1995, David Murray wrote:
B. Unilateral Anonymity. One party to the transaction is known, but the other is unknowable. An example might be subscribing for a digital security with ecash - the issuer is known, but the purchaser is anonymous.
C. Bilateral Anonymity. The identities of both parties to the transaction are unknowable. This might be the case on a cypherpunk stock exchange... Or we could use the client/server terminology when possible.
I was actually vaguely referring to contract theory - unilateral and bilateral executory contracts. And this is where this discussion folds into Bob Hettinga's point about non-repudiation. How can an anonymous party credibly bind its future actions? One way is to hide the identity of the human/actor making the promise/contract but leave their assets where the other party (the promisee) can get to them if the anonymous party defaults. (The reputation of a pseudonym is an interesting version of this.) A pledge of digital securities is a possibility; some sort of protected pool of assets is another. Alot of transactions/contracts only involve one party making a promise that they have to perform in the future. When I get on a bus, once I've paid the fare, only the bus company still has to perform its half of the contract (although, as something of a complicating factor, I could still _breach_ the contract). This is why I used the subscription for a security as an example - once I've paid my ecash, it's only the issuer that has to make the coupon payments and redeem the security in the future - the contract is unilaterally executory, with the known party still to perform. But alot of contracts involve performance over time by _both_ parties - they are bilaterally executory. It would seem that, to be effective, both of the parties (or at least sufficient of their assets) must be known. So, unilateral/bilateral anonymity is kind of the complement of unilateral/ bilateral executoriness. Perhaps client/server terminology is better. [And before someone points it out - alot of these issues have been explored centuries ago, and the answers led to commercial innovations like bills of exchange, bills of sale, bills of lading etc. I plan to spend more time learning from legal history in the hope we are destined to repeat it...] Whatever. Dm. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMIYWxVlo3j8JHzalAQFgJQQAndaHZT4pUsx2WojXsMaiI7cBblyDE2S6 v8b74NzuGxZpDsUjtQFTuqhbIbqPjpLuIxn7c0DjNAPoa0w3LwCOvtjUkDh4HiKj UnlXu61I6Tf3KKUr4GmBadWmADdzfnPPXl7HFHr0GfH7a17ET97CVJzoYQTYl5xu rI3y3gYe8e8= =QDQf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- [Palmtop News Reader - Beta Version 3]