[42627] in Cypherpunks
Re: ecash remailer
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Aleph One)
Tue Oct 31 21:26:36 1995
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 20:18:19 -0600 (CST)
From: Aleph One <aleph1@dfw.net>
To: Cypherpunks Mailing List <cypherpunks@toad.com>
In-Reply-To: <199510311940.OAA31415@opine.cs.umass.edu>
Ahh yes, but but Ed would not spend those coins, he would use them to
launder others peoples coins such that any person laundering coins thrugh
Ed may randombly get a coin, even Alice and Charlie! Whats the bank to do
when they see the coins bein spent by a few hundred diferent people.
Aleph One / aleph1@dfw.net
http://underground.org/
KeyID 1024/948FD6B5
Fingerprint EE C9 E8 AA CB AF 09 61 8C 39 EA 47 A8 6A B8 01
On Tue, 31 Oct 1995, Futplex wrote:
> Jumping in hastily:
>
> It seems to me that Ed faces a larger problem if the above scenario turns
> out to be a viable attack. Consider the following sequence: Alice and
> Charlie decide to get some (payee-anonymous) currency laundromat in hot
> water. Alice (payer-anonymously) washes some coins at the laundromat.
> Con-man Charlie claims he didn't get paid for some fictional transaction with
> Alice. Alice complains to the bank, and the rest proceeds as before. The
> Alice-frames-Ed situation is functionally equivalent to the Bob-robs-Charlie
> situation from the bank's perspective.
>
> -Futplex <futplex@pseudonym.com>
>
