Corrections to sections 1 and 2
Please check out the second to last paragraph of the introduction as I'm not really happy with it. There are spelling correction elsewhere as I ran ispell, not sure if I accedentally switched somew ords from British to American spelling.
This commit is contained in:
parent
bdc8bc7de3
commit
2863132570
@ -110,12 +110,12 @@ current payment systems which enable either an authoritarian state in
|
|||||||
total control of the population, or create weak states with almost
|
total control of the population, or create weak states with almost
|
||||||
anarchistic economies.
|
anarchistic economies.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
The Taler protocol is havily based on ideas from
|
The Taler protocol is heavily based on ideas from
|
||||||
Chaum~\cite{chaum1983blind} and also follows Chaum's basic architecture of
|
Chaum~\cite{chaum1983blind} and also follows Chaum's basic architecture of
|
||||||
customer, merchant and mint (Figure~\ref{fig:cmm}). The two designs
|
customer, merchant and mint (Figure~\ref{fig:cmm}). The two designs
|
||||||
share the key first step where the {\em customer} withdraws digital
|
share the key first step where the {\em customer} withdraws digital
|
||||||
{\em coins} from the {\em mint} with unlinkability provided via blind
|
{\em coins} from the {\em mint} with unlinkability provided via blind
|
||||||
signatures. The coins can then be spend at a {\em merchant} who {\em
|
signatures. The coins can then be spent at a {\em merchant} who {\em
|
||||||
deposits} them at the mint. Taler uses online detection of
|
deposits} them at the mint. Taler uses online detection of
|
||||||
double-spending, thus assuring the merchant instantly that a
|
double-spending, thus assuring the merchant instantly that a
|
||||||
transaction is valid.
|
transaction is valid.
|
||||||
@ -146,95 +146,93 @@ Taler was designed for use in a modern social-liberal society, which we
|
|||||||
believe needs a payment system with the following properties:
|
believe needs a payment system with the following properties:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\begin{description}
|
\begin{description}
|
||||||
\item[Customer Anonymity] It must be impossible for mints, merchants
|
\item[Customer Anonymity]
|
||||||
and even a global active adversary, to trace the spending behavior
|
It must be impossible for mints, merchants and even a global active
|
||||||
of a customer.
|
adversary, to trace the spending behavior of a customer.
|
||||||
\item[Unlinkability] Merchants must not be able to tell if two
|
\item[Unlinkability]
|
||||||
transactions were performed by the same customer. It must be
|
As a strong form of customer anonymity, it must be infeasible to
|
||||||
infeasible to link a set of transactions to the same (anonymous)
|
link a set of transactions to the same (anonymous) customer.
|
||||||
customer. %, even when taking aborted transactions into account.
|
%, even when taking aborted transactions into account.
|
||||||
\item[Taxability] In many current legal systems, it is the
|
\item[Taxability]
|
||||||
responsibility of the merchant to deduct (sales) taxes from
|
In many current legal systems, it is the responsibility of the merchant
|
||||||
purchases made by customers, or to pay (income) taxes for payments
|
to deduct (sales) taxes from purchases made by customers, or to
|
||||||
received for work.
|
pay (income) taxes for payments received for work.
|
||||||
%Taxation is neccessary for the state to
|
%Taxation is necessary for the state to
|
||||||
%provide legitimate social functions, such as education. Thus, a payment
|
%provide legitimate social functions, such as education. Thus, a payment
|
||||||
%system must facilitate sales, income and transaction taxes.
|
%system must facilitate sales, income and transaction taxes.
|
||||||
This specifically means that the state must be able to audit merchants (or
|
This requires that merchants, or anybody receiving electronic transfers,
|
||||||
generally anybody receiving money), and thus the receiver of
|
is easily identifiable, so that the state can ensure that its
|
||||||
electronic cash must be easily identifiable.
|
taxation regime is obeyed.
|
||||||
%non-anonymous, as this would enable tax fraud.
|
\item[Verifiability]
|
||||||
\item[Verifiability] The payment system should try to minimize the
|
The payment system should try to minimize the trust necessary between
|
||||||
trust necessary between the participants. In particular, digital
|
the participants. In particular, digital signatures should be used,
|
||||||
signatures should be used extensively in order to be able to
|
and retained, whenever they would play a role in resolving disputes. % between the involved parties.
|
||||||
resolve disputes between the involved parties. Nevertheless,
|
Nevertheless, customers must never be able to defraud anyone, and
|
||||||
customers must never be able to defraud anyone, and merchants must
|
merchants must at best be able to defraud their customers by not
|
||||||
at best be able to defraud their customers by not delivering
|
delivering on the agreed contract. Neither merchants nor customers
|
||||||
on the agreed contract. Neither merchants nor customers must ever
|
should ever be able to commit fraud against the mint. Additionally,
|
||||||
be able to commit fraud against the mint. Both customers and
|
both customers and merchants must receive cryptographic proofs of
|
||||||
merchants must receive cryptographic proofs of bad behavior in
|
bad behavior in case of protocol violations by the mint.
|
||||||
case of protocol violations by the mint. Thus, only the mint will
|
In this way, only the mint will need to be tightly audited and regulated.
|
||||||
have to be tightly audited and regulated. The design must make it
|
The design must make it easy to audit the finances of the mint.
|
||||||
easy to audit the finances of the mint.
|
|
||||||
\item[Ease of Deployment] %The system should be easy to deploy for
|
\item[Ease of Deployment] %The system should be easy to deploy for
|
||||||
% real-world applications. In order to lower the entry barrier and
|
% real-world applications. In order to lower the entry barrier and
|
||||||
% acceptance of the system, a gateway to the existing financial
|
% acceptance of the system, a gateway to the existing financial
|
||||||
% system should be provided, i.e. by integrating internet-banking
|
% system should be provided, i.e. by integrating internet-banking
|
||||||
% protocols such as HBCI/FinTAN.
|
% protocols such as HBCI/FinTAN.
|
||||||
The digital currency should be
|
The digital coins should be denominated in existing currencies,
|
||||||
tied 1:1 to existing currencies (such as EUR or USD) to avoid
|
such as EUR or USD, to avoid exposing citizens to unnecessary risks
|
||||||
exposing citizens to unnecessary risks from currency fluctuations.
|
from currency fluctuations.
|
||||||
Moreover, the system must have a free software reference
|
Moreover, the system must have an open protocol specification and
|
||||||
implementation and an open protocol standard.
|
a free software reference implementation.
|
||||||
% The protocol should
|
% The protocol should
|
||||||
% be able to run easily over HTTP(S).
|
% be able to run easily over HTTP(S).
|
||||||
\item[Low resource consumption] In order to minimize the operating
|
\item[Low resource consumption]
|
||||||
costs and environmental impact of the payment system, it must
|
In order to minimize the operating costs and environmental impact of
|
||||||
avoid the reliance on expensive and ``wasteful'' computations
|
the payment system, it should avoid the reliance on expensive or
|
||||||
such as proof-of-work.
|
``wasteful'' computations, such as proof-of-work.
|
||||||
\item[Fractional payments] The payment system needs to handle both
|
\item[Fractional payments]
|
||||||
small and large payments in an efficient and reliable manner.
|
The payment system needs to handle both small and large payments in
|
||||||
Thus, coins cannot just be issued in the smallest unit of currency,
|
an efficient and reliable manner. It is inefficient to simply issue
|
||||||
and a mechanism to give {\em change} must be provided to ensure
|
coins in the smallest unit of currency, so instead a mechanism to
|
||||||
that customers with sufficient total funds can always spend them.
|
give {\em change} should be provided to ensure that customers with
|
||||||
For example, a customer may want to pay \EUR{49,99} using a
|
sufficient total funds can always spend them.
|
||||||
\EUR{100,00} coin. The system must then support giving change in
|
|
||||||
the form of say two fresh \EUR{0,01} and \EUR{50,00} coins. Those
|
|
||||||
coins must be {\em unlinkable}: an adversary should not be able to
|
|
||||||
relate transactions with either of the new coins to the original
|
|
||||||
\EUR{100,00} coin or transaction or the other change being generated.
|
|
||||||
\end{description}
|
\end{description}
|
||||||
|
%
|
||||||
|
We give a concise example of how these properties interact:
|
||||||
|
A customer may want to pay \EUR{49,99} using a \EUR{100,00} coin.
|
||||||
|
the system must thus support giving change in the form of spendable coins,
|
||||||
|
say a \EUR{0,01} coin and a \EUR{50,00} coin.
|
||||||
|
A merchant cannot simply give the customer their coins in another transaction
|
||||||
|
however, as this reverses the role of merchant and customer, and
|
||||||
|
our taxability requirement would deanonymize the customer.
|
||||||
|
Instead, the customer should obtain new freshly anonymized coins that cannot be
|
||||||
|
linked with this transaction, the original \EUR{100,00} coin, or each other.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Instead of using cryptographic methods like $k$-show
|
Instead of using cryptographic methods like $k$-show signatures
|
||||||
signatures to achieve divisiblity~\cite{brands1993efficient},
|
\cite{brands1993efficient} to achieve divisibility,
|
||||||
Taler's fractional payments use a
|
Taler's fractional payments use a simpler, more powerful mechanism.
|
||||||
simpler, more powerful mechanism. In Taler, a coin is not simply a
|
In Taler, a coin is not simply a unique random token, but a private key.
|
||||||
unique random token, but a private key. Thus, the transfer of a coin
|
A customer transfers currency from a coin to a merchant by cryptographically
|
||||||
can be performed by signing a message using this private key. Thus,
|
signing a deposit message with this private key. This deposit message
|
||||||
the customer can simply specify the fraction of a coin's value that is
|
specifies the fraction of the coin's value to be paid to the merchant.
|
||||||
to be paid to the merchant in the cryptographically signed deposit
|
A key contribution of Taler is the {\em refresh} protocol, which enables
|
||||||
message given to the merchant. A key contribution of Taler is the
|
a customer to exchange the residual value of the exchanged coin for
|
||||||
{\em refresh} protocol, which enables a customer to exchange the
|
unlinkable fleshy anonymized change.
|
||||||
residual value of a coin for fresh coins, thereby providing unlinkable
|
|
||||||
change. Using online checks, the mint can trivially ensure that all
|
|
||||||
transactions involving the same coin do not exceed the total value of
|
|
||||||
the coin.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Online fraud detection can create problems if the network fails during
|
Taler mints ensure that all transactions involving the same coin
|
||||||
the initial steps of a transaction. For example, a law enforcement
|
do not exceed the total value of the coin, thereby
|
||||||
agency might try to entrap a customer by offering illicit goods and
|
requiring that merchants process transactions online.
|
||||||
then cancelling the transaction (i.e. by pretending that there is
|
This improves dramatically on systems that support offline merchants with
|
||||||
a network failure) after learning the public key of the
|
cryptographic threats to deanonymizing customers who double-spend, like
|
||||||
coin. This is equivalent to a benign merchant giving a dissatisfied
|
restrictive blind signatures \cite{brands1993efficient}.
|
||||||
(anonymous) customer a {\em refund} by sending a message affirming
|
In such schemes, if a transaction is interrupted, then any coins sent to
|
||||||
the cancellation.
|
the merchant become tainted, but may never arrive or be spent.
|
||||||
|
It becomes tricky to extract the value of the tainted coins without linking
|
||||||
If the customer later spends the refunded coin on a purchase with
|
to the aborted transaction and risking deanonymization.
|
||||||
shipping, the state can link the two transactions and might be able to
|
As with support for fractional payments, Taler addresses these problems by
|
||||||
use the shipping address to deanonymize the customer. As with support
|
allowing customers to refresh tainted coins, thereby destroying the link
|
||||||
for fractional payments, Taler addresses this problem by allowing
|
between the refunded or aborted transaction and the coin.
|
||||||
customers to refresh coins, thereby destroying the link between the
|
|
||||||
refunded (or aborted) transaction and the coin.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Taler ensures that the {\em entity} of the user owning the new coin is
|
Taler ensures that the {\em entity} of the user owning the new coin is
|
||||||
the same as the entity of the user owning the old coin, thus making
|
the same as the entity of the user owning the old coin, thus making
|
||||||
@ -255,29 +253,30 @@ transactions are recorded for eternity, which can enable
|
|||||||
identification of users. In theory, this concern has been addressed
|
identification of users. In theory, this concern has been addressed
|
||||||
with the Zerocoin extension to the protocol~\cite{miers2013zerocoin}.
|
with the Zerocoin extension to the protocol~\cite{miers2013zerocoin}.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
While these protocols dispense with the need for a central, trusted
|
These protocols do dispense with the need for a central, trusted
|
||||||
authority and provide anonymity, we argue there are some major,
|
authority, while providing a useful measure of pseudonymity.
|
||||||
irredeemable problems inherent in these systems:
|
Yet, there are several major irredeemable problems inherent in their designs:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\begin{itemize}
|
\begin{itemize}
|
||||||
\item Bitcoins are not (easily) taxable. The legality and legitimacy of
|
|
||||||
this aspect is questionable. The Zerocoin extension would only make
|
|
||||||
this worse.
|
|
||||||
\item Bitcoins can not be bound to any fiat currency, and are subject to
|
|
||||||
significant value fluctuations. While such fluctuations may be
|
|
||||||
acceptable for high-risk investments, they make Bitcoin unsuitable as
|
|
||||||
a medium of exchange.
|
|
||||||
\item The computational puzzles solved by Bitcoin nodes with the purpose
|
\item The computational puzzles solved by Bitcoin nodes with the purpose
|
||||||
of securing the block chain
|
of securing the block chain consume a considerable amount of computational
|
||||||
consume a considerable amount of computational resources and thus
|
resources and energy. So Bitcoin does not an environmentally responsible
|
||||||
energy. Thus, Bitcoin does not represent an environmentally responsible
|
|
||||||
design.
|
design.
|
||||||
\item Anyone can easily start an alternative Bitcoin transaction chain
|
\item Bitcoin transactions are not easily taxable, leading to legal hurdles.
|
||||||
(a so-called AltCoin) and, if successful, reap the benefits of the low
|
% The legality and legitimacy of this aspect is questionable.
|
||||||
cost to initially create coins via computation. As a result, dozens of
|
The Zerocoin extension would only make this worse.
|
||||||
AltCoins have been created, often without any significant changes to the
|
\item Bitcoins can not easily be bound to any fiat currency, leading to
|
||||||
technology. A large number of AltCoins creates additional overheads for
|
significant fluctuations in value. These fluctuations may be desirable in
|
||||||
currency exchange and exascerbates the problems with currency fluctuations.
|
a high-risk investment instrument, but they make Bitcoin unsuitable as
|
||||||
|
a medium of exchange.
|
||||||
|
\item Worse, anyone can start an alternative Bitcoin transaction chain,
|
||||||
|
called an AltCoin, and, if successful, reap the benefits of the low
|
||||||
|
cost to initially create coins via computation. As participants are
|
||||||
|
de facto investors, these become a form of ponzi scheme.
|
||||||
|
% As a result, dozens of
|
||||||
|
% AltCoins have been created, often without any significant changes to the
|
||||||
|
% technology. A large number of AltCoins creates additional overheads for
|
||||||
|
% currency exchange and exacerbates the problems with currency fluctuations.
|
||||||
\end{itemize}
|
\end{itemize}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
GreenCoinX\footnote{\url{https://www.greencoinx.com/}} is a more
|
GreenCoinX\footnote{\url{https://www.greencoinx.com/}} is a more
|
||||||
@ -293,16 +292,15 @@ systems.
|
|||||||
\subsection{Chaum-style electronic cash}
|
\subsection{Chaum-style electronic cash}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Taler builds on ideas from Chaum~\cite{chaum1983blind}, who proposed a
|
Taler builds on ideas from Chaum~\cite{chaum1983blind}, who proposed a
|
||||||
digital payment system that would provide (some) customer anonymity
|
digital payment system that would provide some customer anonymity
|
||||||
while disclosing the identity of the merchants. Chaum's digital cash
|
while disclosing the identity of the merchants. Chaum's digital cash
|
||||||
(DigiCash) system had some limitations and ultimately failed to be widely
|
system DigiCash had some limitations and ultimately failed to be widely
|
||||||
adopted. In our assessment, key reasons for DigiCash's failure that
|
adopted. In our assessment, key reasons for DigiCash's failure that
|
||||||
Taler avoids include:
|
Taler avoids include:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\begin{itemize}
|
\begin{itemize}
|
||||||
\item The use of patents to protect the technology; a payment system
|
\item The use of patents to protect the technology; a payment system
|
||||||
must be libre --- free software --- to have a chance for widespread
|
should be free software (libre) to have a chance for widespread adoption.
|
||||||
adoption.
|
|
||||||
\item The use of off-line payments and thus deferred detection of
|
\item The use of off-line payments and thus deferred detection of
|
||||||
double-spending, which could require the mint to attempt to recover
|
double-spending, which could require the mint to attempt to recover
|
||||||
funds from customers via the legal system. This creates a
|
funds from customers via the legal system. This creates a
|
||||||
@ -311,7 +309,7 @@ Taler avoids include:
|
|||||||
payments might have been a necessary feature. However, today
|
payments might have been a necessary feature. However, today
|
||||||
requiring network connectivity is feasible and avoids the business
|
requiring network connectivity is feasible and avoids the business
|
||||||
risks associated with deferred fraud detection.
|
risks associated with deferred fraud detection.
|
||||||
\item % In addition to the risk of legal disputes with fradulent
|
\item % In addition to the risk of legal disputes with fraudulent
|
||||||
% merchants and customers,
|
% merchants and customers,
|
||||||
Chaum's published design does not clearly
|
Chaum's published design does not clearly
|
||||||
limit the financial damage a mint might suffer from the
|
limit the financial damage a mint might suffer from the
|
||||||
@ -331,7 +329,7 @@ Taler avoids include:
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||
Chaum's original digital cash system~\cite{chaum1983blind} was
|
Chaum's original digital cash system~\cite{chaum1983blind} was
|
||||||
extended by Brands~\cite{brands1993efficient} with the ability to {\em
|
extended by Brands~\cite{brands1993efficient} with the ability to {\em
|
||||||
divide} coins and thus spend (certain) fractions of a coin using
|
divide} coins and thus spend certain fractions of a coin using
|
||||||
restrictive blind signatures. Compared to Taler, performing
|
restrictive blind signatures. Compared to Taler, performing
|
||||||
fractional payments is cryptographically way more expensive and
|
fractional payments is cryptographically way more expensive and
|
||||||
moreover the transactions performed with ``divisions'' from the same
|
moreover the transactions performed with ``divisions'' from the same
|
||||||
@ -359,13 +357,12 @@ the mint. Instead of always paying, the customer ``gambles'' with the
|
|||||||
merchant for each microdonation. Only if the merchant wins, the
|
merchant for each microdonation. Only if the merchant wins, the
|
||||||
microdonation is upgraded to a macropayment to be deposited at the
|
microdonation is upgraded to a macropayment to be deposited at the
|
||||||
mint. Peppercoin does not provide customer-anonymity. The proposed
|
mint. Peppercoin does not provide customer-anonymity. The proposed
|
||||||
statistical method for mints detecting fraudulent cooperation between
|
statistical method by which mints detect fraudulent cooperation between
|
||||||
customers and merchants at the expense of the mint not only creates
|
customers and merchants at the expense of the mint not only creates
|
||||||
legal risks for the mint (who has to make a statistical argument), but
|
legal risks for the mint, but would also require that the mint learns
|
||||||
also would require the mint to learn about microdonations where the
|
about microdonations where the merchant did not get upgraded to a
|
||||||
merchant did not get upgraded to a macropayment. Thus, it is unclear
|
macropayment. It is therefore unclear how Peppercoin would actually
|
||||||
how Peppercoin would actually reduce the computational burden on the
|
reduce the computational burden on the mint.
|
||||||
mint.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\section{Design}
|
\section{Design}
|
||||||
@ -424,7 +421,7 @@ from customers using legal means.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||
Electronic coins are trivially copied between machines. Thus, we must
|
Electronic coins are trivially copied between machines. Thus, we must
|
||||||
clarify what kinds of operations can even be expected to be taxed.
|
clarify what kinds of operations can even be expected to be taxed.
|
||||||
After all, without instrusive measures to take away control of the
|
After all, without intrusive measures to take away control of the
|
||||||
computing platform from its users, copying an electronic wallet from
|
computing platform from its users, copying an electronic wallet from
|
||||||
one computer to another can hardly be prevented by a payment system.
|
one computer to another can hardly be prevented by a payment system.
|
||||||
Furthermore, it would also hardly be appropriate to tax the moving of
|
Furthermore, it would also hardly be appropriate to tax the moving of
|
||||||
@ -625,7 +622,7 @@ fresh coin.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||
%As with other operations, the refreshing protocol must also protect
|
%As with other operations, the refreshing protocol must also protect
|
||||||
%the mint from double-spending; similarly, the customer has to have
|
%the mint from double-spending; similarly, the customer has to have
|
||||||
%cryptographic evidence if there is any misbehaviour by the mint.
|
%cryptographic evidence if there is any misbehavior by the mint.
|
||||||
%Finally, the mint may choose to charge a transaction fee for
|
%Finally, the mint may choose to charge a transaction fee for
|
||||||
%refreshing by reducing the value of the generated fresh coins
|
%refreshing by reducing the value of the generated fresh coins
|
||||||
%in relation to the value of the melted coins.
|
%in relation to the value of the melted coins.
|
||||||
@ -657,7 +654,7 @@ because it is certified by the auditors.
|
|||||||
As we are dealing with financial transactions, we explicitly describe
|
As we are dealing with financial transactions, we explicitly describe
|
||||||
whenever entities need to safely commit data to persistent storage.
|
whenever entities need to safely commit data to persistent storage.
|
||||||
As long as those commitments persist, the protocol can be safely
|
As long as those commitments persist, the protocol can be safely
|
||||||
resumed at any step. Commitments to disk are cummulative, that is an
|
resumed at any step. Commitments to disk are cumulative, that is an
|
||||||
additional commitment does not erase the previously committed
|
additional commitment does not erase the previously committed
|
||||||
information. Keys and thus coins always have a well-known expiration
|
information. Keys and thus coins always have a well-known expiration
|
||||||
date; information committed to disk can be discarded after the
|
date; information committed to disk can be discarded after the
|
||||||
@ -729,7 +726,7 @@ $\widetilde{C} := S_K(C_p)$:
|
|||||||
transaction, $a$ is data relevant to the contract indicating which services
|
transaction, $a$ is data relevant to the contract indicating which services
|
||||||
or goods the merchant will deliver to the customer, $f$ is the price of the offer,
|
or goods the merchant will deliver to the customer, $f$ is the price of the offer,
|
||||||
and $p$ is the merchant's payment information (e.g. his IBAN number) and $r$ is
|
and $p$ is the merchant's payment information (e.g. his IBAN number) and $r$ is
|
||||||
a random nounce. The merchant commits $\langle \mathcal{A}
|
a random nonce. The merchant commits $\langle \mathcal{A}
|
||||||
\rangle$ to disk and sends $\mathcal{A}$ to the customer.
|
\rangle$ to disk and sends $\mathcal{A}$ to the customer.
|
||||||
\item\label{deposit} The customer must possess or acquire a coin minted by a mint that is
|
\item\label{deposit} The customer must possess or acquire a coin minted by a mint that is
|
||||||
accepted by the merchant, i.e. $K$ should be publicly signed by some $D_j
|
accepted by the merchant, i.e. $K$ should be publicly signed by some $D_j
|
||||||
@ -947,7 +944,7 @@ the certification process.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||
The refresh protocol offers an easy way to enable refunds to
|
The refresh protocol offers an easy way to enable refunds to
|
||||||
customers, even if they are anonymous. Refunds can be supported
|
customers, even if they are anonymous. Refunds can be supported
|
||||||
by including a public signing key of the mechant in the transaction
|
by including a public signing key of the merchant in the transaction
|
||||||
details, and having the customer keep the private key of the spent
|
details, and having the customer keep the private key of the spent
|
||||||
coins on file.
|
coins on file.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
@ -982,7 +979,7 @@ check and not also all previous owners of the physical check.
|
|||||||
As with any unconditionally anonymous payment system, the ``Perfect
|
As with any unconditionally anonymous payment system, the ``Perfect
|
||||||
Crime'' attack~\cite{solms1992perfect} where blackmail is used to
|
Crime'' attack~\cite{solms1992perfect} where blackmail is used to
|
||||||
force the mint to issue anonymous coins also continues to apply in
|
force the mint to issue anonymous coins also continues to apply in
|
||||||
principle. However, as mentioned Taler does faciliate limits on
|
principle. However, as mentioned Taler does facilitate limits on
|
||||||
withdrawals, which we believe is a better trade-off than the
|
withdrawals, which we believe is a better trade-off than the
|
||||||
problematic escrow systems where the necessary intransparency
|
problematic escrow systems where the necessary intransparency
|
||||||
actually facilitates voluntary cooperation between the mint and
|
actually facilitates voluntary cooperation between the mint and
|
||||||
@ -1033,7 +1030,7 @@ in courts. Taler's implementation is designed to export evidence and
|
|||||||
upholds the core principles described in~\cite{fc2014murdoch}. In
|
upholds the core principles described in~\cite{fc2014murdoch}. In
|
||||||
particular, in providing the cryptographic proofs as evidence none of
|
particular, in providing the cryptographic proofs as evidence none of
|
||||||
the participants have to disclose their core secrets, the process is
|
the participants have to disclose their core secrets, the process is
|
||||||
covered by standard testing proceedures, and the full trusted
|
covered by standard testing procedures, and the full trusted
|
||||||
computing base (TCB) is public and free software.
|
computing base (TCB) is public and free software.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
%\subsection{System Performance}
|
%\subsection{System Performance}
|
||||||
@ -1292,7 +1289,7 @@ One issue in this protocol is that the customer may use a worthless
|
|||||||
coin by offering a coin that has already been spent. This kind of
|
coin by offering a coin that has already been spent. This kind of
|
||||||
fraud would only be detected if the customer actually lost the coin
|
fraud would only be detected if the customer actually lost the coin
|
||||||
flip, and at this point the merchant might not be able to recover from
|
flip, and at this point the merchant might not be able to recover from
|
||||||
the loss. A fradulent anonymous customer may run the protocol using
|
the loss. A fraudulent anonymous customer may run the protocol using
|
||||||
already spent coins until the coin flip is in his favor.
|
already spent coins until the coin flip is in his favor.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
As with incremental spending, lock permissions could be used to ensure
|
As with incremental spending, lock permissions could be used to ensure
|
||||||
@ -1327,7 +1324,7 @@ The following steps are executed for microdonations with upgrade probability $p$
|
|||||||
\end{enumerate}
|
\end{enumerate}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Evidently the customer can ``cheat'' by aborting the transaction in
|
Evidently the customer can ``cheat'' by aborting the transaction in
|
||||||
Step 3 of the microdonation protocol if the outcome is unfavourable ---
|
Step 3 of the microdonation protocol if the outcome is unfavorable ---
|
||||||
and repeat until he wins. This is why Taler is suitable for
|
and repeat until he wins. This is why Taler is suitable for
|
||||||
microdonations --- where the customer voluntarily contributes ---
|
microdonations --- where the customer voluntarily contributes ---
|
||||||
and not for micropayments.
|
and not for micropayments.
|
||||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user