From: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace•org>
To: Bitcoin-Dev <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] ecash and revocability
Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 13:51:51 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130514115151.GA21600@netbook.cypherspace.org> (raw)
So back in 1999, in an ecash thread on cypherpunks I claimed:
http://marc.info/?l=cypherpunks&m=95280154629900&w=2
> I wouldn't say ecash has to use blinding, but I would argue it would be a
> misuse of the word "ecash", if something which was revocable were dubbed
> ecash.
This was in the context of a discussion of digigold (e-gold stored the
physical gold, digigold offered "ecash" backed in that physical gold).
Digigold ran on Systemics payment server/sox protocol. Because of inferred
regulatory concerns and patent licensing issues digigold & systemics were
not using blind signatures. However with systemics sox server, like
bitcoin, you could create multiple accounts on demand and shuffle payments
around for a degree of privacy. The bitcoin analogy would be the
transaction log lived in the systemics server, so it had a central failure
point, but arguably more privacy as the log was not public. Also systemics
SOX protocol (Ian Grigg & Gary Howland) had some aspect of bitcoins smart
contract concepts - ricardian contracts.
http://iang.org/papers/ricardian_contract.html
(Btw the anonymous reply itself was interesting -
http://marc.info/?l=cypherpunks&m=95280154629912&w=2 that could have been
Nakamoto, the only missing thing from the parts on the discussion room floor
to bitcoin is mathematical inflation control.)
The thread actually started here
http://marc.info/?l=cypherpunks&m=95280154629912&w=2 and then continues here
http://marc.info/?l=cypherpunks&m=95280154629900&w=2 because of a subject
line change and then http://marc.info/?l=cypherpunks&m=95280154629916&w=2
and http://marc.info/?l=cypherpunks&m=95280154629948&w=2
more subject line change confusion.
A related thread a few days later also covers Sander & Ta-Shma (which
zerocoin is based on):
http://marc.info/?l=cypherpunks&m=95280154630167&w=2
there were many more threads about various ecash technologies.
Adam
next reply other threads:[~2013-05-14 11:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-05-14 11:51 Adam Back [this message]
2013-05-14 14:09 ` [Bitcoin-development] bitcoin taint & unilateral revocability (Re: ecash and revocability) Adam Back
2013-05-14 14:27 ` Simon Barber
2013-05-14 17:30 ` grarpamp
2013-05-15 10:25 ` [Bitcoin-development] blind symmetric commitment for stronger byzantine voting resilience (Re: bitcoin taint & unilateral revocability) Adam Back
2013-05-15 11:19 ` Peter Todd
2013-05-15 11:49 ` Adam Back
2013-05-15 12:40 ` Caleb James DeLisle
2013-05-15 16:21 ` Adam Back
2013-05-15 18:01 ` Caleb James DeLisle
2013-05-15 23:40 ` Adam Back
2013-05-16 1:24 ` Gavin
2013-05-16 1:39 ` Gregory Maxwell
2013-05-16 2:22 ` Mike Hearn
2013-05-16 2:45 ` Gregory Maxwell
2013-05-16 5:52 ` Caleb James DeLisle
2013-05-16 11:32 ` Adam Back
2013-05-16 14:51 ` Adam Back
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20130514115151.GA21600@netbook.cypherspace.org \
--to=adam@cypherspace$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox