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.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blockchain animation
Blockchain technology offers society a new capability: sharing business records whose tamper resistance can be trusted more, and for a lo...

-
The petro is a clever idea, although I'm not sure the, uh, tension between Venezuela's executive and legislative branches makes a c...
-
As the Bitcoin community braces for a needlessly hostile fork, I'd like to remind future would-be forkers that there is a cool concept k...
-
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-26/what-the-world-s-central-banks-are-saying-about-cryptocurrencies
No comments:
Post a Comment