[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Taler] Hello
From: |
Joerg Baach |
Subject: |
Re: [Taler] Hello |
Date: |
Wed, 7 Dec 2016 00:13:53 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1 |
Hi Christian, hi Jeff,
thanks a lot for your explainations.
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?
On the merchant's certificate - I understand that you want to use x509.
But _who_ is signing in the end? The way I understand Christian's answer
it would piggypack on the existing certificate infrastructure, avoiding
to roll out a new one, but also inherit the trust issues, with way to
many CAs of questionable trustworthyness. Why not only trust a small
subset of CAs, or can the exchange define what CAs to trust?
Lastly, the NFC. A nice approach to use the merchant as a bridge to the
issuer. I have to think about that one. I wonder though if in a person
to person situation cash is much more reliable, and also faster and
untraceable.
Cheers,
Joerg
- Re: [Taler] Hello, Joerg Baach, 2016/12/05
- Re: [Taler] Hello, Jeff Burdges, 2016/12/05
- Re: [Taler] Hello, Christian Grothoff, 2016/12/06
- Re: [Taler] Hello,
Joerg Baach <=
- Re: [Taler] Hello, Jeff Burdges, 2016/12/06
- Re: [Taler] Hello, Christian Grothoff, 2016/12/07
- Re: [Taler] Hello, Joerg Baach, 2016/12/07
- Re: [Taler] Hello, Christian Grothoff, 2016/12/29
- Re: [Taler] Hello, Joerg Baach, 2016/12/31
- Re: [Taler] Hello, Jeff Burdges, 2016/12/31
- Re: [Taler] Hello, Christian Grothoff, 2016/12/31
- Re: [Taler] Hello, Christian Grothoff, 2016/12/31