5 ms·
> If I could come up with something better, they would have done that. Don't give up so easily! If you're going to make a stance borne out of principle, why no
by CiPHPerCoder 10y ago
> If I could come up with something better, they would have done that.
Don't give up so easily! If you're going to make a stance borne out of principle, why not follow through to outperform the suboptimal solution that you dislike so much?
Innovate. Put some skin in the game. That's what I would do, anyway.
As it stands: If any of the folks involved in the trusted setup was honest, then it's secure. It takes a 100% corruption to make it insecure. I think that's acceptable until a better solution is proposed.
- pablovidal85 10y agoWhy such a small group of people though?
- CiPHPerCoder 10y agoI don't have access to the answer to that question. I wasn't involved at all.
- eridius 10y agoewillbefull explains in another comment that the protocol is really expensive per participant: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12979677 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12979677
- plasticmachine 10y agoThen rushing the launch in the absence of a superior MPC protocol is just a bad idea. Except that they had to rush the launch because they're a for-profit, centralised company, with investors that are demanding return on their investment. Thus they went with a shoddy, half-baked attempt at a trusted setup, with a whole lot of hand-waving to make it seem like it was done securely.