3 ms·

Why would I care about building widespread “truly” decentralised cryptography? This also sounds like idealism. And I speak as someone that works in cryptograph

by Nursie 4y ago

Why would I care about building widespread “truly” decentralised cryptography? This also sounds like idealism. And I speak as someone that works in cryptography-related spaces including PKI. How many of those millions of people get compromised in some way, lose their ‘money’ and are then chided for poor opsec? How many don’t even bother with self-custody and just use centralised services like exchanges? Honestly it all seems ideological.

dcolkitt 4y ago
You don't see any value to people owning their own crypto keys and identity instead of relying on a centralized party like Facebook? I'm not even talking about digital assets. I'm purely talking about the ability of someone to sign their own emails without being dependent on a monopoly like Gmail to do it for them.
- Nursie 4y ago
  I don’t see that for most people this is any sort of enabling technology, no. In fact I think for average humans that delegation is a very worthwhile service. Edit — And whether we agree or not, this really seems to fall into an ideological space rather than being a practical thing.
- catach 4y ago
  > I'm purely talking about the ability of someone to sign their own emails without being dependent on a monopoly like Gmail to do it for them. What is blockchain adding for this usecase that's beyond what PGP [1] offers? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy
- kkielhofner 4y ago
  No. The centralized platforms and social networks you reference have tens of millions to billions of users. I would not be surprised at all if between all of them they do millions of password resets daily. No matter how much the crypto community tries to force it people forget stuff and mess things up. The concept of average users managing their own keys is DOA.
throwaway0asd 4y ago
My personal project is a working case study proving the practicality of the idea. It’s not ideological and enables things you would dare do with prior existing server/client models.

by Nursie 4y ago

dcolkitt 4y ago

You don't see any value to people owning their own crypto keys and identity instead of relying on a centralized party like Facebook? I'm not even talking about digital assets. I'm purely talking about the ability of someone to sign their own emails without being dependent on a monopoly like Gmail to do it for them.

Nursie 4y ago
I don’t see that for most people this is any sort of enabling technology, no. In fact I think for average humans that delegation is a very worthwhile service. Edit — And whether we agree or not, this really seems to fall into an ideological space rather than being a practical thing.
catach 4y ago
> I'm purely talking about the ability of someone to sign their own emails without being dependent on a monopoly like Gmail to do it for them. What is blockchain adding for this usecase that's beyond what PGP [1] offers? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy
kkielhofner 4y ago
No. The centralized platforms and social networks you reference have tens of millions to billions of users. I would not be surprised at all if between all of them they do millions of password resets daily. No matter how much the crypto community tries to force it people forget stuff and mess things up. The concept of average users managing their own keys is DOA.

throwaway0asd 4y ago

My personal project is a working case study proving the practicality of the idea. It’s not ideological and enables things you would dare do with prior existing server/client models.