Re: [freehaven-dev] Revocation

[dmolnar@belegost.mit.edu]

On Tue, 16 May 2000, Roger Dingledine wrote:

> that means the author needs to keep the share-signing key around, rather
> than throwing it away as soon as he builds the shares.
> 
> that's bad.

Just as bad as keeping "x" around in the H(x) proposal, better, or worse?

I'm not saying that I like revocation -- just pointing out that keeping
the share-signing key around instead of generating and taking care of "x"
seems like less hassle and avoids some of the problems with the H(x)
scheme.