Nomen Nescio wrote: > Ben Laurie writes: > > >>Note that the scheme as described (and corrected) is vulnerable to >>marking by the bank, and so is not anonymous. This is discussed and >>fixed in my paper on Lucre >>(http://anoncvs.aldigital.co.uk/lucre/theory2.pdf). > > > Actually the scheme described based on Chaum's talk (corrected for > probable typos) is essentially what you describe in your paper as the > Type II Defence, in section 5. Your analysis shows that it is not > vulnerable to marking and is anonymous. > > Speaking of anonymous, you should give credit in your paper to Anonymous > for discovering the possibility of marking Lucre coins, in a coderpunks > posting at > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg02186.html, and for > inventing the Type II Defence, both in the posting above and amplifed > at http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg02323.html. > > It may seem pointless to credit anonymous postings, but it makes the > historical record more clear.
Anonymous _is_ creditted, but I can add the specific URLs. Cheers, Ben. -- http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html http://www.thebunker.net/ Available for contract work. "There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
