Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Unexpected Ways in which Bitcoin Dodged Some Cryptographic Bullets

bitcoinmagazine.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 76 posts

Re: Unexpected Ways in which Bitcoin Dodged Some Cryptographic Bullets

#51

Post by tptacek »

Matthew Green and Paulo Barreto were making fun of this on Twitter. No, the use of a hash does not mean bitcoin will survive quantum cryptanalysis. As Green --- not a stranger to the workings of bitcoin --- puts it, "if the elliptic curve discrete log problem is solved, bitcoin is toast".

Further, the "smart" curve choice bitcoin made was simply not using the NIST P-curves. But lots of stuff chose not to use the NIST curves; that's why we have Certicom's curves and the Brainpool curves. Unfortunately, bitcoin didn't do that much better than the NIST P-curves; the Koblitz curves they use also have problems that researchers are exploring.

Re: Unexpected Ways in which Bitcoin Dodged Some Cryptographic Bullets

#52

Post by mkramlich »

my takeaway from this article just reinforces the perception of Bitcoin I already had, namely: which do I trust more? a monetary system run by engineers & mathematicians. or a monetary system run by politicians/lawyers, government bureaucrats, and an old-money banking aristocracy? Choices, choices...

Re: Unexpected Ways in which Bitcoin Dodged Some Cryptographic Bullets

#53

Post by maaku »

celticninja wrote: post #42
maaku wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. The original bitcoin client did what was called direct-to-IP transactions, which didn't use hashed pubkeys, and which was vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks (oops). Bitcoin's ECDSA curve was chosen because it was one of the faster ones, not because of any NIST connection (a "real" cryptographer of the day would have probably advised against the secp256k1 curve used in bitcoin in favor of one of the N…

unless the "real" cryptographer knew about the NIST/NSA weakening of secp256r1

My point, perhaps too subtle, was that in 2009 there was not sufficient public evidence to suggest such weakening. Rather, the reigning opinion (supported by historical evidence) was that NIST/NSA routinely strengthened standards by selecting parameters so as to make the algorithm secure against publicly unknown mathematical attacks. That is, after all, their stated purpose and what they did with the DES S-boxes.

Turns out, the NSA is a shadow of its former self. But you'd have to have had non-public insider information to have known that with confidence in 2009.

Re: Unexpected Ways in which Bitcoin Dodged Some Cryptographic Bullets

#54

Post by HNaTTY »

misiti3780 wrote: post #45

I'm not a crypto expert at all but I do have one question: If there is a concept of "quantum-safe" (which I did not know until reading this article), why hasn't the broader internet (HTTPS) adopted them? Is there any plans for there adoption in the future?

Quantum-safe in the same respect that an md5sum of an ISO cannot reveal the contents of the ISO.

Re: Unexpected Ways in which Bitcoin Dodged Some Cryptographic Bullets

#55

Post by deegles »

BoppreH wrote: post #43
sillysaurus2 wrote: post #3

Who created Bitcoin? This comment seems to offer many clues: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5547590 There are two groups that are on the suspects list for having engendered bitcoin, one group centers around Trinity College, another is a bunch of loosely affiliated international collaborators. Both groups are on the record with precursors to bitcoin (papers, software), neither has admitted openly that they were…

Satoshi mined bitcoins alone for a long time, back when it was easiest. If they did not lose those original coins, they are stupidly rich. When you hit a jackpot like this, remaining silent and denying everything is one of the most sensible courses of action.

People are keeping a close eye on the addresses holding all of those bitcoins. I wonder how he'll avoid being detected when trying to withdraw them.

Re: Unexpected Ways in which Bitcoin Dodged Some Cryptographic Bullets

#56

Post by Glyptodon »

This is the first time I've seen information addressing quantum computers and bitcoin in a meaningful way (between the linked text and the additional info it links). As a relative layperson when it comes to such things it's nice to finally have some notion of Bitcoin's ability to cope with the quantum world.

Re: Unexpected Ways in which Bitcoin Dodged Some Cryptographic Bullets

#57

Post by frezik »

throwhalloween wrote: post #30
mrb wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say points #1 through #4 promote the theory that Satoshi is a single person. The more persons would be behind the Satoshi identity, the more chances there would be for mistakes or leaks: one of them spending/stealing the BTC, one of them boasting about the secret Bitcoin project, or revealing it while intoxicated at a party, etc.

That's a fairly normal response but you're basically acting like a conspiracy nut. This doesn't have to be some crazy story. There's the means, the motive, and the opportunity to create Bitcoin. Why would a lone actor be so motivated to keep their identity a secret? We obviously disagree.

That's the opposite of a conspiracy nut. One person is not a conspiracy.

Re: Unexpected Ways in which Bitcoin Dodged Some Cryptographic Bullets

#58

Post by JeremyBanks »

misiti3780 wrote: post #45

I'm not a crypto expert at all but I do have one question: If there is a concept of "quantum-safe" (which I did not know until reading this article), why hasn't the broader internet (HTTPS) adopted them? Is there any plans for there adoption in the future?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-quantum_cryptography

My understanding is that schemes that would be resistant to quantum attacks are much less efficient, and have more negative tradeoffs, than the systems in use today. Speed is an important property for a most cryptography, so few people would adopt such a system until the threat seems more pressing.

Re: Unexpected Ways in which Bitcoin Dodged Some Cryptographic Bullets

#59

Post by marcosdumay »

mrb wrote: post #32
throwhalloween wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a fairly normal response but you're basically acting like a conspiracy nut. This doesn't have to be some crazy story. There's the means, the motive, and the opportunity to create Bitcoin. Why would a lone actor be so motivated to keep their identity a secret? We obviously disagree.

Honestly, "the NSA or some secret group with a PR agency created Bitcoin" sounds more like a conspiracy theory than "a lone programmer wanted to experiment with ideas of a peer-to-peer currency"... There are 2 simple reasons why Satoshi would want to remain anonymous: #1 He is estimated to own ~1 million BTC ($200 million); many thieves would capture/torture/murder someone for the chance to steal that amount! #2 Some…

#3 In his foot, I'd be paranoid against a governemnt declaring me some kind of enemy or terrorist.

Re: Unexpected Ways in which Bitcoin Dodged Some Cryptographic Bullets

#60

Post by drcode »

throwhalloween wrote: post #31
gd1 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>very difficult to believe that something this sophisticated was developed by anyone other than a well financed, possibly nation-state backed organisation. Hilarious. A "well financed, nation-state backed organisation" just gave us the Obamacare website.

The same nation-state successfully operates the largest military organization in the world without accidentally detonating any nuclear bombs. It doesn't all have to be ACA websites.

Hey- I haven't accidentally set off any nuclear bombs yet, either! Am I awesome, or what?

I should add that as a bullet on my resume:

   - Hasn't accidentally set off any nuclear bombs.
Post reply on HN