[6681] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: Legal/patent analysis of Lucre?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ben Laurie)
Tue Feb 29 10:01:18 2000
Message-ID: <38BBB39E.C04DCD75@algroup.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 11:55:10 +0000
From: Ben Laurie <ben@algroup.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com>
Cc: Coderpunks <coderpunks@toad.com>,
UKCrypto List <ukcrypto@maillist.ox.ac.uk>,
Cryptography <cryptography@c2.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
"James A. Donald" wrote:
>
> --
> 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.
Guess that's another possibility to add to the list.
Cheers,
Ben.
--
SECURE HOSTING AT THE BUNKER: http://www.thebunker.net/hosting.htm
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html
Coming to ApacheCon? http://ApacheCon.Com/
