3 ms·

You claim this but signatures in many cases work by encrypting the hash so that it can be decrypted by the public key (and therefore if the decrypted hash match

You claim this but signatures in many cases work by encrypting the hash so that it can be decrypted by the public key (and therefore if the decrypted hash matches the plaintext's hash, it's considered a valid signature). There's lots of schemes of course but that's the basic concept. (And of course I don't think anybody would seriously consider ECC signatures (which don't use encryption) as "not cryptography") Signatures are cryptography. Signatures work because of cryptography. And even ignoring that of course your whole "cryptocurrency isn't cryptography" stance completely falls apart for all of the many projects that are built on zero knowledge cryptography.

AnthonyMouse 1y ago
> You claim this but signatures in many cases work by encrypting the hash so that it can be decrypted by the public key (and therefore if the decrypted hash matches the plaintext's hash, it's considered a valid signature). Calling that "encrypting the hash" is assuming the conclusion. The mathematics are the same as encryption, but the consequence is different. In particular, the thing allegedly being "encrypted" isn't a secret -- the hash both isn't confidential and isn't required to be. > And even ignoring that of course your whole "cryptocurrency isn't cryptography" stance completely falls apart for all of the many projects that are built on zero knowledge cryptography. No, would imply that Monero is actually cryptocurrency and Bitcoin isn't. But if that's your position then you'd need to get everyone to stop calling Bitcoin cryptocurrency.