Anonymous says, (btw, I really wonder what's the point of having a technical
discussion incognito... I hope this is not for a really good/bad reason such as
you are living in some dark country),
> Hmmm... sounds like you are saying that if you had an anonymous payment
> system you could use it to buy "checks" in your non-anonymous system.
> But if you already had the ability to make anonymous payments, why bother
> with your system? I can go to the bank and buy a cashier's check for
> cash, then make a payment with it, but I could just as easily have paid
> with cash directly.
There are two reasons. First, as you say below, there is simply the reality of
there being multiple systems. Second, and more essential, there are some
important advantages e.g. in efficiency to non-anonymous payment mechanisms.
BTW, non-anonymous here does not necessarily mean `identity-based`, but rather,
payment mechanism which do not offer complete, secure anonymity. The problem is
of course that if such non-anonymous payment mechanisms are common, it may
become difficult to convince merchants to support also an anonymous payment
mechanism (with relatively few customers - assuming most customers will not be
willing to `pay` for the anonymity). Furthermore customers choosing the
anonymous mechanism may attract attention to themselves (I guess the use of
`anonymous` for e-mail is a good example!). So I think my simple hybrid proposal
makes sense.
> Of course in practice it is helpful to have money changers who can
> convert between different payment systems, since there are so many
> competing proposals in the world.
Agreed.
> > We actually will have the necessary APIs in merchant and buyer to allow
> > integration of such an anonymous payment mechanism with the next release
> > of IBM Micro Payment (1.3, next month). We may later on implement this
> > ourselves if customers are interested, but frankly I prefer to see others
> > implementing it; for one reason, as you know, there are multiple patents
> > regarding anonymous payments, so it will be a pain to do this (in IBM).
> http://www.ecoin.net/mmdh is a project based on Wagner blinding which
> is thought to escape patent protection. Perhaps this would be a good
> starting point for a blind payment system. Are your APIs going to
> be public?
Thanks for the pointer. Of course, as long as the anonymity is provided by
somebody else, I don't need even to worry about the patents... so much the
better...
And yes, of course we're going to publish our APIs. We actually published also
the APIs for version 1.2 (see the manuals in our site) but then, version 1.3 is
almost a complete re-write of the system and in particular we've dramatically
improved the APIs - so better wait for them. We hope to be able to publish them
in time for the IETF BOF on Micro Payments (BTW I'm still looking for
presentations and interest in this event - let me know if you want to present,
or event just confirm to me that there is interest in the BOF and in at least us
proposing our protocols). Discussions of the BOF are in [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Best Regards,
Amir Herzberg
Manager, E-Business and Security Technologies
IBM Research - Haifa Lab (Tel Aviv Office)
http://www.hrl.il.ibm.com
New e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
New Lotus notes mail: amir herzberg/haifa/ibm@IBMIL
Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 24/09/99 00:44:47
Please respond to Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], micropay@IBMIL
cc: (bcc: Amir Herzberg/Haifa/IBM)
Subject: Re: Ecash without a mint, or - making anonymous payments practical
Amir Herzberg says,
> Anonymous says,
>
> > It is still worth considering how to create anonymous payment systems
> > which could be more compatible with other elements of present day society.
>
> I think we can do this, indeed, we can achieve an even stronger goal:
> a payment mechanism that will support anonymous payments for people
> so wishing, while allowing other people to use non-anonymous payments
> (which will always have some advantages), without allowing merchants to
> identify the anonymity-seekers.
Yes, of course you could add identification to an anonymous payment
system simply by having people reveal their identities. Anonymity
infrastructures offer users the option to hide their identities, but
they can't stop people from revealing pseudonyms or true names.
> The method is simple and can use any anonymous payment mechanism. Consider
> for simplicity a buyer, seller and a billing server (payment system
> provider - bank, telco, etc. - `billing system` is the term we use
> for this party in IBM Micro Payments). The payment system supports
> pre-certified payments, which are payments (to the seller) signed
> directly by the billing server. In this case, the buyer's identity
> obviously does not need to appear in the pre-certified payment (it
> is simply a payment - like a check - from billing server to seller).
> So all the buyer really does is `buy` this pre-certified payment. Now,
> obviously, if the billing system allows, the buyer may use anonymous
> payment protocol to buy the pre-certified payment, in which case (and
> assuming all communication is anonymized) we have complete anonymity
> (from billing system and from seller).
Hmmm... sounds like you are saying that if you had an anonymous payment
system you could use it to buy "checks" in your non-anonymous system.
But if you already had the ability to make anonymous payments, why bother
with your system? I can go to the bank and buy a cashier's check for
cash, then make a payment with it, but I could just as easily have paid
with cash directly.
Of course in practice it is helpful to have money changers who can
convert between different payment systems, since there are so many
competing proposals in the world. So it would be useful if you could in
fact accept some kind of anonymous payment system and translate it into
your own currency. This is more of a financial problem than a technical
one, though.
> We actually will have the necessary APIs in merchant and buyer to allow
> integration of such an anonymous payment mechanism with the next release
> of IBM Micro Payment (1.3, next month). We may later on implement this
> ourselves if customers are interested, but frankly I prefer to see others
> implementing it; for one reason, as you know, there are multiple patents
> regarding anonymous payments, so it will be a pain to do this (in IBM).
http://www.ecoin.net/mmdh is a project based on Wagner blinding which
is thought to escape patent protection. Perhaps this would be a good
starting point for a blind payment system. Are your APIs going to
be public?
