• 10 Posts
  • 223 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 20th, 2023

help-circle



















  • Regardless of whether it’s eroding trust in cryptography today, I still assert it was a reasonable choice when the term was coined. Cryptocurrency depends fundamentally on cryptography.

    just because it uses sha256 as it’s proof of work doesn’t make it crypto, as it was essentially picked out of a hat.

    You could probably switch proof-of-work to use some non-cryptographic primitive with similar properties (maybe protein folding?) and it would still serve the same purpose, ignoring the economic problems. I will concede that point.

    Bitcoin still cannot function without cryptography. Each UTXO is bound to a particular key pair. Each block refers to its parent using a hash. If either of those were switched to a non-cryptographic primitive, there would be no way to authenticate the owner of a UTXO, nor would there be a way to prove the ordering of blocks. Removing cryptography from cryptocurrency would make it entirely useless as a currency.

    And for the signing of transactions, are we going to start calling bank checks crypto?

    Banks existed for a thousand years without the existence of cryptography. If you removed cryptography from RCS, you’d still have the rest of the standard for messaging.