4 ms·

EV is expensive bits issued by a trusted third party. Cryptocurrency, Bitcoin, is expensive bits issued by a non-trusted third party. I don’t see how you can

EV is expensive bits issued by a trusted third party. Cryptocurrency, Bitcoin, is expensive bits issued by a non-trusted third party. I don’t see how you can be bullish on the first without being bullish on the second, yet I can see how being bullish on the second can mean bearish on the first. Solutions involving no TTP are better than solutions involving TTP. I like PHB and he has done great things in the field of cryptography. His belief in centralization of public key systems for security runs counter to the cypherpunks who want to decentralize everything despite the costs.

natpalmer1776 5y ago
Ah, while thinking of an adequate response to this comment, I think I may have discerned the nature of his complaint in context of what is happening at large. To both clarify my own thoughts and hopefully share what may be a useful revelation I've taken the time to write out a somewhat long-form response below. --- *TTP Transactions* When transactions are brokered through a TTP such as via swiping a credit card at Walmart. The transaction is then brokered by Visa, Mastercard, et. al. who retains the ability to reconcile various types of disputes & fraudulent transactions after the fact with minimal loss of money. At any point the central authority can technically reverse charges without the consent of either originating party. My non-expert, "educated layman's" understanding is secure online digital communication was designed with the express intent of being used in this kind of scenario. You have a number of transactions of which some non-zero quantity are fradulent, relying on the affected parties to initiate some kind of arbitrage via the trusted third party. Prior to crypto, very few (if any) transactions performed online were irreversible economic transactions requiring *full trust* in the security of the communication channel to mitigate fraudulent transactions. Which brings me to what I believe to be his primary point of contention, putting gripes about specific decisions and technologies aside... --- *Non-TTP Transactions* Crypto currencies that require zero-trust in a third-party have no(?) mechanism with which to mitigate fraud. That means your entire chain of communication, from physical layer all the way up to end-user, must be hardened against forms of irrecoverable tampering, that would otherwise be a recoverable nuisance in a TTP model. As one of the engineers who designed & put into place a large part of the security around the communication channel being used PHB appears to be taking offense to the assertion that this exploit was due to a flaw in "the web's" security. Simply put, it was never designed to be the first and final layer of defense against fraudulent activity, and if we want crypto currency to be 'the future' we should walk in the path of our predecessors and design a communication stack that explicitly addresses the concerns of being used for non-TTP transactions.
- randomhodler84 5y ago
  Such a good write up!! 100%. We need to harden the stack at all layers, as many components were not explicitly defined to protect under the zero trust model, especially with the exploitable financial incentives that could not have existed before. Thank you, I feel your insight has helped strengthen my understanding too.

natpalmer1776 5y ago

Ah, while thinking of an adequate response to this comment, I think I may have discerned the nature of his complaint in context of what is happening at large. To both clarify my own thoughts and hopefully share what may be a useful revelation I've taken the time to write out a somewhat long-form response below. --- *TTP Transactions* When transactions are brokered through a TTP such as via swiping a credit card at Walmart. The transaction is then brokered by Visa, Mastercard, et. al. who retains the ability to reconcile various types of disputes & fraudulent transactions after the fact with minimal loss of money. At any point the central authority can technically reverse charges without the consent of either originating party. My non-expert, "educated layman's" understanding is secure online digital communication was designed with the express intent of being used in this kind of scenario. You have a number of transactions of which some non-zero quantity are fradulent, relying on the affected parties to initiate some kind of arbitrage via the trusted third party. Prior to crypto, very few (if any) transactions performed online were irreversible economic transactions requiring *full trust* in the security of the communication channel to mitigate fraudulent transactions. Which brings me to what I believe to be his primary point of contention, putting gripes about specific decisions and technologies aside... --- *Non-TTP Transactions* Crypto currencies that require zero-trust in a third-party have no(?) mechanism with which to mitigate fraud. That means your entire chain of communication, from physical layer all the way up to end-user, must be hardened against forms of irrecoverable tampering, that would otherwise be a recoverable nuisance in a TTP model. As one of the engineers who designed & put into place a large part of the security around the communication channel being used PHB appears to be taking offense to the assertion that this exploit was due to a flaw in "the web's" security. Simply put, it was never designed to be the first and final layer of defense against fraudulent activity, and if we want crypto currency to be 'the future' we should walk in the path of our predecessors and design a communication stack that explicitly addresses the concerns of being used for non-TTP transactions.

randomhodler84 5y ago
Such a good write up!! 100%. We need to harden the stack at all layers, as many components were not explicitly defined to protect under the zero trust model, especially with the exploitable financial incentives that could not have existed before. Thank you, I feel your insight has helped strengthen my understanding too.