4 ms·
That's a good point. You'd have to restrict to information available to someone at the current time, and not based on future randomness (like winning lottery nu
by jsharpe 13y ago
That's a good point. You'd have to restrict to information available to someone at the current time, and not based on future randomness (like winning lottery numbers). Otherwise, you could make (effectively) unbounded money by just specifying the stock symbol of a company that gains the most in value in the next year.
- jere 13y agoWell, yes. I see your original point... it makes sense if you look at it from a perspective of communicating the information rather than a security perspective, which is what I was focusing on. Of course, that all assumes that the receiver knows a priori they are receiving a key and what the key corresponds to. And assuming you wanted to set something like that up, there are a lot more dense ways to go about it. It reminds me of this: http://killscreendaily.com/articles/articles/we-went-looking-jason-rohrers-lost-board-game-didnt-make-it-very-far/ http://killscreendaily.com/articles/articles/we-went-looking... In other words, bury massive inheritance in the desert. Issue a list of 1,000,000 GPS coordinates. Then you only need 10 bits.