The "empty wallet" isn't an operative part of the argument. The argument is that all three properties need to hold; this is true even in the 11.5m example. Eac

The "empty wallet" isn't an operative part of the argument. The argument is that all three properties need to hold; this is true even in the 11.5m example. Each of the scenarios above fails test (3). The most compelling of them is the abusive relationship one, since we can reasonably imagine a non-sophisticated adversary in that setting. But even then, you're relying on conflicting terms: what kind of abusive partner is sufficiently irrational to be abusive but also sufficiently rational to believe a cryptographic proof? Or, put another way: overwhelming evidence has not historically been a strong defense against abuse.