4 ms·

Not sure of the use cases, but it sounds very cool!

withinboredom 4y ago
Basically a digital time locked safe. You could send something to a reporter and not even the NSA could open it until the appropriate time. You could encrypt crypto-wallet keys with it and your heir can’t open them until after turning a certain age. My use case: my wife or myself write a letter that can’t be opened until some point in the future. Every year, we delete the old letter and write a new one. This is “in case we die” so it’s addressed to loved ones. Right now, we can theoretically read each other’s letters if we wanted to, but this encryption doesn’t require us trusting each other, the service we host them on, or anything.
- rozab 4y ago
  Well, I'm sure the NSA would have the Galileo private keys? Seems eminently useful
  - withinboredom 4y ago
    If that were true, potentially every intelligence agency on earth would have a copy and it would defeat the purpose of it since anyone could spoof gps signals. It seems entirely within Europe’s interest to keep it out of any other agency’s hands as it would defeat the purpose of it.
    - thfuran 4y ago
      These sorts of agencies have a habit of getting their hands on things that other people didn't intend them to.
      - withinboredom 4y ago
        Well, hopefully they get into a habit of routinely rotating the key.
        RealityVoid 4y ago
        Would that not break your system though? I admit my lack of knowledge in public key infrastructure.
        withinboredom 4y ago
        I just checked and it looks like[1] this happens at least once a year, specifically to guard against this kind of attack. It doesn’t break the chain of hashes though. 1: https://www.euspa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/calls_for_proposals/annex_1-rd4.pdf https://www.euspa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/calls_for_pr...
- RealityVoid 4y ago
  > Right now, we can theoretically read each other’s letters if we wanted to, but this encryption doesn’t require us trusting each other, the service we host them on, or anything. Ah, yes, this enables the famous trustless relationship. :) (I kid, I'm sure you have a lovely relationship, but the clash was too funny for me)
- dolmen 4y ago
  > [...] but this encryption doesn’t require us trusting each other [...] Your wife has to trust your encryption system and its implementation.
  - withinboredom 4y ago
    We do trust each other, this is mostly born of a conversation last week. We were talking about extending it just beyond us, but our loved ones as well, and friends. Thus “require” in this sentence does not imply we do not trust each other (we do) but that it is not necessary to work. We aren’t worried about governments and corporations with too much processing power solving np-complete problems to read these letters, though that may be other people’s threat models.

Basically a digital time locked safe. You could send something to a reporter and not even the NSA could open it until the appropriate time. You could encrypt crypto-wallet keys with it and your heir can’t open them until after turning a certain age. My use case: my wife or myself write a letter that can’t be opened until some point in the future. Every year, we delete the old letter and write a new one. This is “in case we die” so it’s addressed to loved ones. Right now, we can theoretically read each other’s letters if we wanted to, but this encryption doesn’t require us trusting each other, the service we host them on, or anything.

rozab 4y ago
Well, I'm sure the NSA would have the Galileo private keys? Seems eminently useful
- withinboredom 4y ago
  If that were true, potentially every intelligence agency on earth would have a copy and it would defeat the purpose of it since anyone could spoof gps signals. It seems entirely within Europe’s interest to keep it out of any other agency’s hands as it would defeat the purpose of it.
  - thfuran 4y ago
    These sorts of agencies have a habit of getting their hands on things that other people didn't intend them to.
    - withinboredom 4y ago
      Well, hopefully they get into a habit of routinely rotating the key.
      - RealityVoid 4y ago
        Would that not break your system though? I admit my lack of knowledge in public key infrastructure.
        withinboredom 4y ago
        I just checked and it looks like[1] this happens at least once a year, specifically to guard against this kind of attack. It doesn’t break the chain of hashes though. 1: https://www.euspa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/calls_for_proposals/annex_1-rd4.pdf https://www.euspa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/calls_for_pr...
RealityVoid 4y ago
> Right now, we can theoretically read each other’s letters if we wanted to, but this encryption doesn’t require us trusting each other, the service we host them on, or anything. Ah, yes, this enables the famous trustless relationship. :) (I kid, I'm sure you have a lovely relationship, but the clash was too funny for me)
dolmen 4y ago
> [...] but this encryption doesn’t require us trusting each other [...] Your wife has to trust your encryption system and its implementation.
- withinboredom 4y ago
  We do trust each other, this is mostly born of a conversation last week. We were talking about extending it just beyond us, but our loved ones as well, and friends. Thus “require” in this sentence does not imply we do not trust each other (we do) but that it is not necessary to work. We aren’t worried about governments and corporations with too much processing power solving np-complete problems to read these letters, though that may be other people’s threat models.