4 ms·
The ban is not on encryption per se (which, as you point out, could be confused with cryptography in general), but on attempting to obscure the content of messa
by firethief 7y ago
The ban is not on encryption per se (which, as you point out, could be confused with cryptography in general), but on attempting to obscure the content of messages. Obscuring message content is by no means a function of digital signatures.
- RL_Quine 7y agoFor ECDSA you can’t provide a signature isn’t arbitrary data. The nonce is by definition not known, so it contains enciphered information.
- Dylan16807 7y agoI think you mean it can't be proven not to have 8 bytes of enciphered information. But anyway, you can use a hash function to generate the 8 bytes of nonce.
- RL_Quine 7y agoYou can’t prove you did without revealing the nonce, and therefor the private key.
- Dylan16807 7y agoYou could reveal it once the transaction is used. If anyone really doubts your 8 bytes.
- firethief 7y agoThat's true but not relevant here because the intent of the signatures is not to conceal the nonces.