3 ms·
If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying they don't need the social ceremony where everyone adds obfuscation, because there is some simple way for one
by mptest 3y ago
If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying they don't need the social ceremony where everyone adds obfuscation, because there is some simple way for one user to derive the same security?
Does that not rely on us all trusting that initial user who "hashes to all zeroes" to maintain the secret? The goal here is not only to establish security but security anyone can participate in to add security, such that everyone trusts it, because anyone could have participated. Even if that's more complicated, it's more trustworthy.
Again though, I am not an expert in anything, I'm a student of computer science. I may be completely misunderstanding you and if I am, I apologize. It could be said though the social construct/contract is kind of the whole point of the decentralized protocols
- quickthrower2 3y agoLike you I am no expert. What I mean is you can construct a challenge that is provably very hard, such as a hash input that produces zeros (translates to near infinite compute power in terms of mining, or some mathematical or quantum computing breakthrough that renders modern cryptography useless then this Ethereum thing is the least of your worries).
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- rrobukef 3y agoThey don't need one number, they need two (or more) that are related in such a way they have cryptographic properties. And the math says to derive them from a seed. However the seed must be secret because it's a back-door. Luckily everybody can generate their own seed and their contributions can be combined without knowing the seeds. All zeros won't work because they don't have the properties.