3 ms·

I believe that was the point they were making.

• lxgr 2y ago
  That's not the same as "not caring for who signed something" though, if you think about it: "Whoever holds the same key that signed this package" is still an identity, if a pseudonymous one.
  • withinboredom 2y ago
    But if you don't care who signed it, then you won't even notice if it was/wasn't signed by the same key. That's what I got out of what they were saying. As in, 'this whole charade is pointless ... but it does solve this somewhat tangentially related problem ... kinda'. > "Whoever holds the same key that signed this package" This only matters if you care or know what the keys are. If your guards let anyone in with a blue pass, it doesn't matter what the name is on the pass or if it even matches the name of the person.
    • lxgr 2y ago
      If nobody cares at all who signed a message, you don't need a signature scheme. > 'this whole charade is pointless ... but it does solve this somewhat tangentially related problem ... kinda'. I'd assume it isn't – why else would they be doing it (other than for compatibility with some package distribution scheme that, for other use cases, enforces the existence of a signature, which is arguably just a special case of "you don't need a signature scheme").