Re: A stab at the sealer in E Ben Laurie (ben@algroup.co.uk)
Tue, 09 Nov 1999 17:26:39 +0000

"Mark S. Miller" wrote:
>
> At 09:53 PM 11/8/99 , hal@finney.org wrote:
> >Also, your Vat to Vat protocol does not try to camouflage traffic
> >patterns; although the data is encrypted, an eavesdropper can determine
> >when communications occur, and how much data is sent.
>
> From talking to Ian Goldberg, I believe Pluribus would be perfectly happy to
> live on top of the Freedom network. Pluribus does nothing for
> untraceability. Freedom (from our point of view) does nothing but
> untraceability. These seem like orthogonal composable parts of the puzzle.
> Our standard high security scenario for analyzing possible risk should
> therefore probably be Pluribus on Freedom (assuming ZKS open sources it),
> and users who consider the untraceability of value. I don't want to blow
> this kind of value elsewhere in the architecture.
>
> Btw, an I using the right terminology? I would say that E/Pluribus provides
> pseudonymity & bearer rights, Freedom provides untraceability, and Blinding
> provides unlinkability. Robust privacy benefits from having all three
> together.

Freedom also provides anonymity and privacy.

ZKS don't have to open source Freedom (though I've already strongly suggested that they should), because it can be used as a library without open sourcing, right?

Cheers,

Ben.

--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html

"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
     - Indira Gandhi