4 ms·
You are moving the goal posts. I didn't say the second wallet is empty, but such that you can afford to lose. For instance you could have one wallet with £10m
by varispeed 3y ago
You are moving the goal posts. I didn't say the second wallet is empty, but such that you can afford to lose.
For instance you could have one wallet with £10m on it an another with £1.5m. You could certainly convince adversary that they got bad intel and £1.5m is what you have. It's better to lose £1.5m than £11.5m.
There are other scenarios like journalist taking compromising photos. They could have two sets of photos - one with key photo missing and another with key photo in the set. When questioned by adversary they could claim they have missed and didn't take the photo and show the set as evidence.
Someone in abusive relationship planning on leaving the partner. They could have a folder with properties they are interested in without the property they are actually going to rent. When caught they could convince the partner that they were just looking, but have not committed to anything.
If you are not in these kind of situations, sure this additional layer may not be to your interest and frankly you wouldn't have to use it! But for many people lack of such feature is a deal breaker.
- woodruffw 3y agoThe "empty wallet" isn't an operative part of the argument. The argument is that all three properties need to hold; this is true even in the 11.5m example. Each of the scenarios above fails test (3). The most compelling of them is the abusive relationship one, since we can reasonably imagine a non-sophisticated adversary in that setting. But even then, you're relying on conflicting terms: what kind of abusive partner is sufficiently irrational to be abusive but also sufficiently rational to believe a cryptographic proof? Or, put another way: overwhelming evidence has not historically been a strong defense against abuse.
- varispeed 3y agoYou are moving goal posts again. Sorry my friend, but you are not discussing this in good faith.