3 ms·
There are so many point of failures in your descriptions I don't know where to begin. - The network can be hacked; - the client can be hacked; - the server c
by sametmax 10y ago
There are so many point of failures in your descriptions I don't know where to begin.
- The network can be hacked;
- the client can be hacked;
- the server can be hacked;
- people managing the server can be corrupted or forced to do things;
- the system could have a subtile bug in either the client, server or network;
- the system could have a failure in either the client, server or network.
- how are persons suppose to be able to audit them ? Go to the server ? The network node ?
- how much time a citizen must spend studying the system before he or she can start to even begin to assess the sanity of it.
- how much time and persons to assess the entire system ?
There is NO WAY an average citizen can even start to comprehend the full extend of all that, if you couldn't even see all those problems.
Paper is simple. It sill can have it's problems, it's not perfect, but people can understand it and audit it quickly, easily, without being trained. It has less single point of failure, less complexity, more accessibility.
Technology is NOT the answer here.
- lisper 10y agoIt's easy to make a list of general weakness that apply to any system, but you haven't actually described any specific attack. Yes, of course all of these things can happen, but all of these risks exist today in voter registries and passport registries. There's nothing really new in a key registry except that it's registering keys. There would still be humans -- notaries -- in the loop, and that would prevent most attacks.