Conventional asymmetric cryptosystems assume computational hardness of this or that math problem (e.g. factoring, discrete logarithm, R-LWE, etc). The lack of proof of classical and quantum hardness of these math problems is what gives me pause, and is much of why I propose DCKR.
What assumption then does DCKR make for derivation of asymmetry? It assumes time travel is not possible. If anyone invents a time machine, we might have to reassess utility of DCKR as well.
(DCKR further relies on a cryptographic hash function, so irreversibility of that hash function is also necessary. But we generally rely on existence of such a function anyhow, so the goal is to not introduce additional attack points into such systems. Also, we have a larger number of hash functions to choose from - so we can more readily swap out one function for another should a vulnerability be found.)
(Updated 12/8/2017 in response to a private email asking for clarification. I still intend to create a better description and analysis, with...
Asymmetric cryptography is a slightly dodgy proposition today, since all known asymmetric cryptosystems require introduction of at least one...
In 1976, Nobel laureate Friedrich Hayek proposed that money should be denationalized, such that privately issued moneys would compete over t...