How is there no privacy for the seller? It seems to me that the bank only learns that the seller 'earned a dollar', not from who it came or for what goods.
You're right - the bank knows exactly how much the seller receives as well as the exact time/date the transaction(s) took place (seller can't hold onto the electronic dollar in the same way the buyer can). This makes it impossible for the seller to launder money through eCash, hide any profits from government for tax reasons, or sell anything on a black market, etc. I get what you're saying, I think this just depends on your definition of privacy. eCash was presented as a system offering 'one-sided anonymity' by Chaum himself : web.archive.org/web/19970111163957/www.digicash.com/ecash/about.html (scroll down to where it says 'Ecash and privacy') You're partly right in saying the bank doesn't know what they sold, or whom to, but one example this might not be the case is this: if you purchased something via eCash and you wanted to deduct it as a business expense, then you could prove to bank you spent money by simply telling them you know the number s'(x) and what it is you bought. You'll need a receipt ofc to prove you bought something that would be classed as a business expense. But this can then be linked to seller, so the seller would lose privacy (in any definition) if the buyer decides to forego their privacy for whatever reason (e.g. proving business expenses). If the number s'(x) is printed on the receipt then you'd simply hand this over.. I believe this is how it was done in practice, but not 100% on that, either way these are just details, this paper only provides the theory, the protocols of using this technology in a real-life transaction could be implemented in a number of ways. Something worth pointing out is that Chaum saw this as a feature, not a bug, because it would be easier to gain institutional adoption - Chaum has said himself he wasn't into the libertarian/anti-establishment way of thinking about cryptocurrency, he was more on the side of protecting privacy, both as a human right and also to prevent data collection on citizens (as we have today), so he was happy to work with banks.
I'm trying to learn about blind signatures as an added way to protect utility parents. There doesn't seem to be information on the web about some trusted third party that accepts and signs unopened descriptions of intellectual property, for cryptographic verification in patent court at some later date. I was thinking maybe I could just use IPFS in some way. Encrypt, upload, store hard copy of key(s) and call it a day? If you can reccommend anything more fitting I would appreciate it greatly!
Sorry I've taken a few days to reply! I've only just seen this. If you take a look at the wiki page for blind sigs: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_signature they have a decent description of the functions used in the case of extending RSA signatures. Chaum doesn't mention any specific functions in this 1982 paper btw, he is just saying 'hey, if we have functions with these properties then we can have a very useful cryptographic tool we can apply to money'. The RSA blind sigs aren't the only way to go about this btw, I believe one of Chaum's grad students, Stefan Brands: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Brands went onto extend ECDSA to have this blind signature property but his version also protected the privacy of the seller, if I am not mistaken - I haven't gone through his work but I heard Adam Back mention this is some interview, not sure which interview this was though
This deserves way more views
Great video, thank you!
Wowwww
How is there no privacy for the seller? It seems to me that the bank only learns that the seller 'earned a dollar', not from who it came or for what goods.
You're right - the bank knows exactly how much the seller receives as well as the exact time/date the transaction(s) took place (seller can't hold onto the electronic dollar in the same way the buyer can). This makes it impossible for the seller to launder money through eCash, hide any profits from government for tax reasons, or sell anything on a black market, etc.
I get what you're saying, I think this just depends on your definition of privacy. eCash was presented as a system offering 'one-sided anonymity' by Chaum himself :
web.archive.org/web/19970111163957/www.digicash.com/ecash/about.html
(scroll down to where it says 'Ecash and privacy')
You're partly right in saying the bank doesn't know what they sold, or whom to, but one example this might not be the case is this:
if you purchased something via eCash and you wanted to deduct it as a business expense, then you could prove to bank you spent money by simply telling them you know the number s'(x) and what it is you bought. You'll need a receipt ofc to prove you bought something that would be classed as a business expense. But this can then be linked to seller, so the seller would lose privacy (in any definition) if the buyer decides to forego their privacy for whatever reason (e.g. proving business expenses). If the number s'(x) is printed on the receipt then you'd simply hand this over..
I believe this is how it was done in practice, but not 100% on that, either way these are just details, this paper only provides the theory, the protocols of using this technology in a real-life transaction could be implemented in a number of ways.
Something worth pointing out is that Chaum saw this as a feature, not a bug, because it would be easier to gain institutional adoption - Chaum has said himself he wasn't into the libertarian/anti-establishment way of thinking about cryptocurrency, he was more on the side of protecting privacy, both as a human right and also to prevent data collection on citizens (as we have today), so he was happy to work with banks.
I'm trying to learn about blind signatures as an added way to protect utility parents. There doesn't seem to be information on the web about some trusted third party that accepts and signs unopened descriptions of intellectual property, for cryptographic verification in patent court at some later date.
I was thinking maybe I could just use IPFS in some way. Encrypt, upload, store hard copy of key(s) and call it a day?
If you can reccommend anything more fitting I would appreciate it greatly!
(confidencial) NADIE HABLA DE LA NUEVA CRIPO DESENTRALIZADO EN LA RED DE BTC ( SATS ) = satoshi
What functions are used?
Sorry I've taken a few days to reply! I've only just seen this.
If you take a look at the wiki page for blind sigs: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_signature they have a decent description of the functions used in the case of extending RSA signatures.
Chaum doesn't mention any specific functions in this 1982 paper btw, he is just saying 'hey, if we have functions with these properties then we can have a very useful cryptographic tool we can apply to money'.
The RSA blind sigs aren't the only way to go about this btw, I believe one of Chaum's grad students, Stefan Brands:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Brands went onto extend ECDSA to have this blind signature property but his version also protected the privacy of the seller, if I am not mistaken - I haven't gone through his work but I heard Adam Back mention this is some interview, not sure which interview this was though
@@redblockblue Thank you
Crypto export laws are imperialistic and wrong in my opinion. Sorry you can't elaborate more.