Whoa, now... (was Re: Digital Cash)
mpd at netcom.com
Sat Mar 26 16:32:42 PST 1994
> :From: "James G. Speth" <december at end.end.com>
> :In fact, he began this thread by citing someone who was talking about using
> :an obscured algorithm to prevent digital cash double spending. (ie. If you
> :can't get to the algorithm, you can't cheat the system.) His comments were
> :on the dangers of relying on this.
If I may make a small correction here, I suggested a tamperproof software
module could be used in an offline system to process transactions in a
way which prevented "ANONYMOUS double spending". This is not the same as
preventing double spending, although in a system where reputations
matter, it has a certain deterrent effect.
> :That's the point. Mikolaj was _never_ referring to cryptographic security.
> :He was pointing out how security through obscuring algorithms can never be
> :considered reliable.
Obscuring the operation of an algorithm inside a tamperproof module isn't
security through obscurity any more than obscuring plaintext by
encipherment is security through obscurity.
Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.3a Public Key available $
mpd at netcom.com $ via Finger. $
More information about the cypherpunks-legacy