taler
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Taler] Hello


From: Jeff Burdges
Subject: Re: [Taler] Hello
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2016 00:32:06 +0100

On Wed, 2016-12-07 at 00:13 +0100, Joerg Baach wrote:
> With regards to the refresh - isn't the whole point of blind signatures
> that the _transactions_ can't be traced, e.g. that your can rely on the
> protocol that no information is leaked? Hiding the IP looks like a
> "second line of defense" to me, a bit like bitcoin. Or do I miss something?

We issue the tokens using blind signatures so that when they are spent
they cannot be traced to who they were issued to.  

If however someone is spying on your internet connection, then you need
something like Tor to prevent that leaking the fact that you are buying
something from a particular site.

> On the merchant's certificate - I understand that you want to use x509.
> But _who_ is signing in the end?

Any standard certificate authority.  We dislike them too, but they're
plenty good enough for the purposes of convincing a court that a receipt
is real. 

> I wonder though if in a person
> to person situation cash is much more reliable, and also faster and
> untraceable.

At present, there are no plans to deploy Taler for "person to person"
transaction.  An Android wallet could do it by integrating the merchant
software and requiring the user turn on data to receive money.  

Cash is only untraceable if ATMs do not record serial numbers.

Jeff

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]