61 ms·

Weird objection. I don't think this is solvable even in theory. I mean we have to encrypt with what we have, right? They could use lattices or something (my i

Weird objection. I don't think this is solvable even in theory. I mean we have to encrypt with what we have, right? They could use lattices or something (my impression is this would be, er, hard on the battery, but that's a vague impression), but those could be cracked as well. They could be cracked first! Let's just say it's a risk I'm willing to take, given that the alternatives appear to be either my messages being public right now, or communicating by snail mail and carrier pigeon.

goodpoint 5y ago
> I don't think this is solvable even in theory. It is very solvable in practice. If I encrypt a TCP connection with AES (e.g. SSL) between my home and your home very few attackers have the ability and budget to capture that traffic, store it for decades and break AES with some quantum-or-whatever computers in year 2050. NSA and perhaps few others. On the other hand, if encrypted data is shared publicly on DHT, a replicated database, a blockchain or similar, in year 2050 your nephews will see grandpa's entire message history. On a practical level, that's a huge difference.
- samatman 5y ago
  That's a reasonable point I suppose, although a private Matrix server is just a fat peer from this perspective. Unless its database lasts 50 years, those messages are just as gone, and Matrix (I think?) uses TLS in addition to E2E. Score a point for urbit I guess: any channel is limited to those peers participating in it, so Mallory would have to get her hands on one of the planets which received the messages. There is no central point of failure because there is no privileged server.