4 ms·
> How can they claim 'it is secure as long as one person forgets their secret' and 'we need to protect against sybil attacks (so sign in with your github accoun
by x-complexity 3y ago
> How can they claim 'it is secure as long as one person forgets their secret' and 'we need to protect against sybil attacks (so sign in with your github account)' ? If the first claim was true, why should they care if the same person takes part multiple times.
> 'it is secure as long as one person forgets their secret'
This is from the 1-of-N security assumption of the cryptographic procedure, wherein at least 1 person is actually honest and destroys their own secret to ensure its security. With a large enough N, this security assumption is made guaranteed due to the non-zero probability of human nature for deviant behavior from the rest of the group, wherein at least 1 person will be honest and perform as specified.
> 'we need to protect against sybil attacks (so sign in with your github account)'
...this claim ignores the large visible button right above the 'or unlock with Github' link, that prompts the user to sign in with their Ethereum address.
https://imgur.com/a/FkjcEQN https://imgur.com/a/FkjcEQN
Aside from this, this is meant as one of the 2 methods of preventing bot spam, the other one being the sign in using an Ethereum address.
> More doublespeak from crypto fetishists.
Doublespeak is not present, joosters, as the two claims address different issues (1-of-N security of the KZG ceremony & bot spam).