4 ms·
I don't think any of this is desirable. For me, it's similar to digital voting, I have strong technical concerns with crypto currencies. The cryptography behind
by JohnStrangeII 7y ago
I don't think any of this is desirable. For me, it's similar to digital voting, I have strong technical concerns with crypto currencies. The cryptography behind them or the implementations will be broken. People claim that it's different now than it used to be. Every cryptographic system of the past has been broken, but now we have the computing power to make them future proof. There are no mathematical proofs for this assertion and there is no reason to believe it when you take into account the history of cryptography. Moreover, for some reasons the security margins in public cryptography tend to be far too low. I'd be surprised if many existing crypto currencies are even "quantum proof" yet - but attacks with quantum computers will likely be feasible in 10 - 20 years, if they aren't already for some state actors.
All it takes is one weakness in a protocol or one mathematical breakthrough in cryptanalysis, and the whole economy of a country could become vulnerable to attack and break down.
- dajohnson89 7y agohow is this different than getting a bank mainframe hacked?
- JohnStrangeII 7y agoIt's a difference of scale. A single bank is less likely to drag down a whole economy and might even be insured against certain types of losses due to criminal activities. In contrast to this, if the value of a whole currency is destroyed over night, then the consequences are way more severe. Bear in mind that currency speculations and transactions can even get traditional currencies into trouble, see e.g. what happened in Argentinia.