On Monday, September 8, 2003, at 08:39 PM, Steve Schear wrote:
At 04:51 PM 9/8/2003 -0700, Joseph Ashwood wrote:----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Schear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [anonymous funding of politicians] > Comments?
Simple attack: Bob talks to soon to be bought politician. "Tomorrow you'll recieve a donation of $50k, you'll know where it came from." Next day, buyer makes 500 $100 donations (remember you can't link him to any transaction), 50k arrives through the mix. Politician knows where it came from, but no one can prove it.
Not so fast. I said the mix would delay and randomize the arrival of payments. So, some of the contributions would arrive almost immediately others/many might take weeks to arrive.
Why are you not addressing the more direct attack, the one I described yesterday?
"The contributions you receive for $87.93 came from our members."
Unless the amounts are consolidated by a third party or dithered (so much for digital money being what it claims to be), this covert channel bypasses the nominal name-stripping.
Sorry, I replied to this but apparently forgot to cc cypherpunks....
Limiting each individual contribution to fixed amounts (say $1, $5, $10, $20 and $100) should close that loophole.
--Tim May
"According to the FBI, there's a new wrinkle in prostitution: suburban teenage girls are now selling their white asses at the mall to make money to spend at the mall.
I guess I must not look like a potential client 'cause no young 'ho ever came up to me and solicited for a 'party'.
steve
A foolish Constitutional inconsistency is the hobgoblin of freedom, adored by judges and demagogue statesmen.
- Steve Schear
