Sounds just like the Bitcoin blockchain to me. Or maybe the fork Namecoin. - Sent from my phone Den 18 dec 2013 02:20 skrev "James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com>:
> On 2013-12-18 04:38, Joseph Birr-Pixton wrote: > >> In very general terms, you cannot hope to achieve confidentiality >> without authenticity. >> >> Your key exchange does not offer authenticity. I would suggest instead >> having the user's keys be signing keys, and do straightforward signed >> ephemeral ECDH. This should also gain you forward secrecy. >> Unfortunately this will introduce a data dependency in your protocol, >> which may cause an unacceptable extra round trip. >> >> With that assumed fixed, your protocol relies entirely on a third >> party (the 'public key server') for authenticity of the key exchange. >> If the overall aim is to avoid having to trust a third party >> (Facebook) to keep messages secret, adding more third parties to the >> problem doesn't seem a great solution. >> > > Google solution: Implement a protocol such that the key server cannot > tell the owner of the name on thing, and someone else trying to contact the > owner of the name a different thing, and cannot rewrite the past. > > Bittorrent serves immutable files globally, such that the file must be the > same for all. Need a bittorent like algorithm for serving slowly mutable > tree structures. Viewed as a history, it is a grow only data structure > with an ever increasing immutable past. The history, however, is kind of > like a git history, representing a fully mutable but slowly changing > present. > _______________________________________________ > cryptography mailing list > cryptography@randombit.net > http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography >
_______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list cryptography@randombit.net http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
