[43757] in Cypherpunks
Re: Proving I'm not Bob.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (s1113645@tesla.cc.uottawa.ca)
Tue Nov 21 19:23:39 1995
From: s1113645@tesla.cc.uottawa.ca
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 19:23:31 -0500 (EST)
To: David Scheidt <david@math.earlham.edu>
Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com
In-Reply-To: <Pine.NXT.3.91.951121142858.1144A-100000@litoria>
On Tue, 21 Nov 1995, David Scheidt wrote:
> What is this system? I can't think of any system that wouldn't work if
> rearranged so that instead of proving you aren't Bob, you simply don't
> prove that you are. It is true that they are not isomorphic, and that
> could be a problem in some situations, but I don't see this as one of them.
Hal and Futplex pretty much described it. I figured a proof of non-identity
(if possible) would have saved one hell of a lot of messy authentication
in those cases when there is only one possible cheater (due to economic
incentives) with many possible pseudonyms (or friends).
