3 ms·

Assuming you mean a Merkle tree (a Markov chain is a statistical concept). A Merkle tree provides an efficient way to compute hashes (not signatures) of data. I

• falcolas 5y ago
  You're correct - Merkle tree. Words are hard some days. > A Merkle tree provides an efficient way to compute hashes (not signatures) A signature is a hash, in that it is effectively unique for the content. It simply has the additional property of being generated using cryptographic keys, proving that not only is the hashed content what's expected, it was generated using the specified key.
  • abiro 5y ago
    Signing and hashing are specific cryptographic operations with well defined properties. You can’t use them interchangeably if you want to be taken seriously.
    • falcolas 5y ago
      A merkle tree that uses cryptographic signing instead of hashing is still a merkle tree. Though if we really feel it's necessary, we could simply say "a merkle-tree like implementation that uses cryptographic signatures in place of a hash function". Pedantry about the difference between hashes and signatures doesn't change the validity of the structure as a response to the original question.
      • abiro 5y ago
        I challenge you to build a Merkle tree using a digital signature scheme in place of a cryptographic hash function where a Merkle tree constructed by Alice can be used by Bob without revealing Alice’s secret key.
        • falcolas 5y ago
          OK. Challenge accepted. Alice and Bob both use asymmetric keys, and use one of a thousand different methods to exchange their public keys (hey, they can even go in the Merkle tree). Alice signs a transaction using her private key and publishes it. Bob can now use Alice's public key to verify the signature on the transaction. No private/secret key exposure. Asymmetric encryption is a fairly well explored field, which is what makes the above both easy to reason about and secure.
          • abiro 5y ago
            Ok well played, you’ve trolled me masterfully.