[6680] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: Legal/patent analysis of Lucre?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (James A. Donald)
Tue Feb 29 10:01:04 2000
Message-Id: <200002290745.XAA05746@proxy2.ba.best.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 23:45:03 -0800
To: Ben Laurie <ben@algroup.co.uk>, Coderpunks <coderpunks@toad.com>,
UKCrypto List <ukcrypto@maillist.ox.ac.uk>,
Cryptography <cryptography@c2.net>
From: "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com>
In-Reply-To: <38AD1DA6.32AF4334@algroup.co.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
--
At 10:23 AM 2/18/00 +0000, Ben Laurie wrote:
> A problem with continued development of Lucre is that various
> solutions to the coin marking problem have been proposed, and
> various opinions as to the likely patent-infringment-ness have been
> given, leaving me no clearer as to what the best way to proceed is.
What is wrong with the original solution proposed in my original
article, <http://www.jim.com/jamesd/kong/anon_transfer.htm>
The client uses an existing used coin for blinding the newly created
coin, preferably a coin that he got from someone else, not a coin
issued to him by the issuer. If the coin issuer marks coins by using
a different key for some coins and not others, the blinding will
generate unrecognizable garbage and the system will fail.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
866Ja9CRG46g+0IGQ8yUuzwAcBKz5xebWLJYovqY
4q6rY/ibFd4ZZFNfuX12aMeAOYhOFdfSXAX+U4/pQ
