**-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----**

OK, for those who have stuck with me so far, I will describe a slightly simplified version of Brands' off-line cash. Users' anonymity is protected unless they double spend. (At last we are departing from Chaum and getting into some of the territory blazed by Brands.)

The first thing that is done is that the value which is signed by the cash issuer in the creation of the cash encodes some information which represents the identity of the user. Let's call the user Irving, and the number which encodes his identity (it might just be his bank account number in this case) we will call I. The rule is that the issuer will only sign values which are of the form d*g1^I, where d is a fixed number used in the cash system, and g1 is another fixed value which is used here similarly to the g of the signature protocol itself. (d can actually encode the denomination by having a few different d values that are used, or else denominations can be encoded by different secret-key x values of the bank as is done in Chaum's cash.)

As in a simplified version of the on-line cash, the signature is blinded to m' by raising it to the power s (we don't multiply by g^t here), getting a number m' of the form (d^s)*g1^(I*s) for random s. This totally masks Irving's I so it is not revealed in normal use.

Now, the next new step is that Irving divides this m' value into two parts, called A and B, such that A*B equals m'. This can only be done (due to the discrete log problem) by having A=(d^x1)*(g1^y1) and B=(d^x2)*(g1^y2) such that s=x1+x2 and I*s=y1+y2. In other words, the exponents on d and g1 are split randomly into two parts and these used to form A and B.

If anyone can find out s and I*s after the cash is spent, they can learn Irving's identity. They know m', A, and B, because they get revealed when Irving spends (as shown below). But this is not enough to learn s & I*s. If you find out x1, x2, y1, and y2, though, this allows s and I*s to be deduced, and therefore also breaks the anonymity.

In spending the cash, Irving must reveal the signed m', along with A and B. (B can actually be deduced as m'/A.) Then, the store comes up with a challenge c (this is a different c than in the withdrawal protocol). Irving has to reply with two numbers: x1+c*x2, and y1+c*y2. This is pretty scary! He's really putting his cojones on the line, here. s(=x1+x2) and s*I(=y1+y2) will give him away, and here he's revealing a simple linear combination of x1&x2, and y1&y2.

But he's actually safe in doing so - as long as he doesn't double-spend. x1+c*x2 still perfectly blinds x1 and x2, since nothing is known about these values, and likewise for y1 and y2. Just like in the original signature protocol where Paul gave away c*x+w, x his secret key, this is safe. (Well, it does appear that he should make sure c!=1. Then he would be telling x1+c*x2 = x1+x2, which is what he doesn't want to give away!)

Irving might be tempted to lie about x1+c*x2 and y1+c*y2, but if he does he will be caught. The shop calculates A*(B^c), and this should be equal to d^(x1+c*x2)*g1^(y1+c*y2). Once this is verified, the shop, having checked the signature on m', accepts the cash.

Now consider what happens if Irving tries to spend the cash again. This second shop will produce a different c challenge; call it c'. Again Irving must respond with x1+c'*x2 and y1+c'*y2. But now his goose is cooked. Once the bank gets the information from both shops it knows both x1+c*x2 and x1+c'*x2, and it knows c and c', so it can deduce x1 and x2. Likewise it can calculate y1 and y2. Adding these up gives s and I*s, and dividing these gives Irving's identity I. He's caught.

There is one significant complication I have skipped over here, and that is the possibility that Irving could choose different A and B values (always with A*B=m') each time he spends. Then the x's & y's would be different each time and he wouldn't get caught. This is avoided by making a small change to the signature-checking algorithm. Earlier recall that a non-interactive signature on m' was defined by (MX',GW',MW',r'), and that it was checked by setting c'=Hash(m',MX',GW',MW'), and doing the special calculation with c' and r'.

For this off-line cash we make a small change, which is that the hash function is calculated as c'=Hash(m',MX',GW',MW',A,B). We include the A and B in calculating the hash function. The bank never sees A and B, just like it never sees any of the other values in the hash function, but c' depends on them. If Irving tries to change A and B, then the c' which the shop calculates (using this longer hash formula) will be different, and it won't work with the r' that Irving got back from the bank. So by including more terms in the hash input we in effect get those things signed as well in a blinded way by the bank. (I think a similar hashing trick is how Schnorr signatures work, BTW).

Once again, this protocol looks complicated, but compare it with Chaum's original off-line cash: there is no cut and choose, and the amount of data exchanged at each step is not very large, a few multi-precision values. I wrote up a long description of Chaum's off-line cash at a similar level of detail to this one, and I really think Brands' cash is far superior.

Hal Finney

**-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----**
Version: 2.3a

iQCVAgUBLllXXKgTA69YIUw3AQHdFQP7BNop9S9RihTKEyBZCEvB7JD7SkGth+uk
eftNFTjjGyKsxFeeyE1wK14G5N/55I7g7ADhSO36BRPrj0Wyv8Z9lpWP0fLA02Ga
mCJnaspPN8oF29Jd/uuA7Sqa62FkIUW0MolWLIcqCshmrL6fG0dOZrhh34fBi/+o
cOjp8H17ziM=

=CVfC

**-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----**

.