[116623] in Cypherpunks
RE: The Chaum coding project
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Lucky Green)
Mon Aug 16 16:55:22 1999
From: "Lucky Green" <shamrock@cypherpunks.to>
To: "Gary Jeffers" <jeffers@htc.net>, "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com>
Cc: <cypherpunks@cyberpass.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 13:38:06 -0700
Message-ID: <NDBBIFGOKODBCKDGJDKLEEGJCDAA.shamrock@cypherpunks.to>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <002401bee6e9$196e9ac0$b1c7a5d0@jeffers>
Reply-To: "Lucky Green" <shamrock@cypherpunks.to>
Wagner-style blinding is interesting, but not nearly as elegant as Chaumian
Blind Signatures. Unfortunately, Chaumian Blind Signatures are patented. And
the patent holders have so far not licensed the technology in a rational
manner. Sure, one could write an Ecash implemtation for "academic use only".
I even know somebody willing to pay for the development effort. But
seriously, what's the point in having an Ecash implementation that can't be
used for commercial purposes?
--Lucky Green <shamrock@cypherpunks.to>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-cypherpunks@Algebra.COM
> [mailto:owner-cypherpunks@Algebra.COM]On Behalf Of Gary Jeffers
> Sent: Saturday, August 14, 1999 23:37
> To: James A. Donald
> Cc: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
> Subject: Re: The Chaum coding project
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com>
> To: Gary Jeffers <jeffers@htc.net>; cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
> <cypherpunks@cyberpass.net>
> Date: Saturday, August 14, 1999 9:55 AM
> Subject: The Chaum coding project
>
>
> My fellow Cypherpunks and fellow James Donald,
>
> > --
> >At 12:37 AM 8/14/99 -0700, Gary Jeffers wrote:
> >>
> >> THE CHAUM CODING PROJECT
> >>
> >> A lot of us are asking: Where is all the E$? James Donald gives us
> >> some reasons in his post which I cannot find. But this is not
> >> entirely satisfactory.
> >>
> >> Could a major problem be that there is no free or shareware E$
> >> systems?
> >
> >Ben Laurie has done some work towards this:
> >
> >Repository pserveranoncvs@anoncvs.aldigital.co.uk/cvsroot password
> >anoncvs module anoncvs.aldigital.co.uk-lucre
> >
> >
> >This code needs some user interface, and a coin server
>
> A successful E$ software system would have to be COMPLETE. - Everything
> neat and ready to go.
> I assume James Donald already knows this. I must emphasize that the big
> hurdle is a turn key
> computer system. This drops the entrance barrier to E$ by orders of
> magnitude. See the reply to
> Adam Shoestack.
>
> >
> >The instructions for getting iBLab at
> ><http//anoncvs.aldigital.co.uk/iBLab/> are applicable, apart of course
> >from the fact that you are getting lucre, not iBlab.
> >
> >> With a turnkey system of programs with source code I would think
> >> that a number of fairly small operators would use E$. Not having
> >> free, easily available, easy to use code is a major stumbling block.
> >>
> >> BUILD IT AND THEY WILL COME
> >>
> >> We don't know who would start E$ with free software, we would need
> >> to put out the free software to find out. Possibly, groups of small
> >> firms dealing in internation barter trade. Possibly, groups of
> >> pornographers in many countries.
> >>
> >> I suspect that the groups that started it up would act as seeds that
> >> would naturally grow geometrically with extensions of the E$ to
> >> other areas of trade. Later, individual systems of E$ trade would
> >> start doing business with each other and it would sky rocket like
> >> the Internet or fax machines.
> >
> >Critical mass.
>
> I must disagree with Critical mass. See the reply to Adam Shoestack. I
> could be wrong in this but I
> think that E$ promoted with other business that already works could be
> introduced profitably and
> at a small scale.
> >
> >Of course we will need a protocol for securely exchanging one kind of
> >ecoin issued by one issuer with another issed by a very different
> >issuer, but we can worry about that once we have some ecoins out there
> >being used.
> >
> >>
> >> ANONYMOUS CODERS
> >>
> >> I propose that the best way to make the E$ software systems is by
> >> using Chaum's algorithms.
> >
> > Unfortunately these are covered by patent. An apparent way around the
>
> Uh - I suggested the possibility - just the possibility - not advocacy -
> that that contrite idiot savant
> could be ignored. I'm not sure that that could be a pratical idea. :-)
>
> Note: As far as I can see, Intellectual "Property" is an artifact of the
> State.
>
> >patent is described at
> >
> >http://www.jim.com/jamesd/kong/anon_transfer.htm. Ben Laurie's code
> >is written in accordance with this apparent hole in the patent.
> >
> >
> > --digsig
> > James A. Donald
> > 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
> > KThlbPbRSeniayBOzhP1M+TNjPtXmw17x8hmUyd2
> > 4QHMIAYNAzvn2lWenccqfdN//+fBpjAzSkcegQ25a
> >
> >
>
> Yours Truly, Gary Jeffers
>
> BEAT STATE!!!!
>
>
>
>
