3 ms·
By this metric, asymmetric cryptography is billions of times more efficient, as an attacker has to do tons of work, but I need to do very little. So no, it is
by joshuamorton 4y ago
By this metric, asymmetric cryptography is billions of times more efficient, as an attacker has to do tons of work, but I need to do very little.
So no, it is incredibly inefficient compared to many other forms of security.
- lampshades 4y agoI think you missed the double-spend part of OP's response.
- eudoxus 4y agoTo be fair, you are comparing a cryptographic algorithm to a consensus (leader election) algorithm. Not exactly apples to apples
- mekster 4y agoWhy are you comparing two trusted parties' communication against random amount of counterparty transactions? When it comes to cryptocurrency, suddenly comment quality goes down the floor in HN.
- tromp 4y agoProof of work has the same asymmetry: producing high PoW is very costly, but verifying PoW is trivial. That's very much the essence of PoW.
- samatman 4y agoHow does asymmetric cryptography solve the Byzantine General's problem again? I'm all ears. "More efficient" doesn't form a complete sentence, you've elided "more efficient at".