- http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/bitcoin-the-cryptoanarchists-answer-to-cash/0
and the images above weren't the full resolution:
- https://i.imgur.com/JfuOo.jpg <-- To see 1871 X 1420 resolution
Topic: IEEE Spectrum report on the future of money (Read 2973 times)
Sorry for the necrothread, but the source article doesn't appear to show the story on Bitcoin specifically, [Edited] which contained the graphic:
- http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/bitcoin-the-cryptoanarchists-answer-to-cash/0
and the images above weren't the full resolution:
- https://i.imgur.com/JfuOo.jpg <-- To see 1871 X 1420 resolution
- http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/bitcoin-the-cryptoanarchists-answer-to-cash/0
and the images above weren't the full resolution:
- https://i.imgur.com/JfuOo.jpg <-- To see 1871 X 1420 resolution
It's also not really relevant, as it describes public-key encryption (which isn't used in bitcoin) instead of signing.
OK I can see the confusion then. Seems decent, except for the "public key cryptography 101" box: analogy with a pair of keys is confusing and wrong. My favorite explanation is the one I stumbled upon on this forum (not sure if Netrin came up with it or he adopted it) -
Yeah. Here's a magical analogy for public key cryptography: I generate a private key and numerous public unlocked treasure chests. I give these open treasure chests to all of my friends (it's easy to copy them). Whenever a friend wants to send me a message, they just put the message in my public treasure chest and close the lid. Now even they can not open it again. Only I, with my unique private key, can open the chest.
After I generated the public keys, I don't really need them any more, unless I want to send messages to myself. But no one needs the private key to lock a message. The private key is only required to open a message.
I don't see anything that is technically incorrect about the PKI explanation in the graphic. Do you care to explain what is wrong with it? netrin's quote is cool for the noobs, but it doesn't mean that what is in the graphic is incorrect at all. Both quotes are very correct and explained differently.Yeah. Here's a magical analogy for public key cryptography: I generate a private key and numerous public unlocked treasure chests. I give these open treasure chests to all of my friends (it's easy to copy them). Whenever a friend wants to send me a message, they just put the message in my public treasure chest and close the lid. Now even they can not open it again. Only I, with my unique private key, can open the chest.
After I generated the public keys, I don't really need them any more, unless I want to send messages to myself. But no one needs the private key to lock a message. The private key is only required to open a message.
It's also not really relevant, as it describes public-key encryption (which isn't used in bitcoin) instead of signing.
Seems decent, except for the "public key cryptography 101" box: analogy with a pair of keys is confusing and wrong. My favorite explanation is the one I stumbled upon on this forum (not sure if Netrin came up with it or he adopted it) -
Yeah. Here's a magical analogy for public key cryptography: I generate a private key and numerous public unlocked treasure chests. I give these open treasure chests to all of my friends (it's easy to copy them). Whenever a friend wants to send me a message, they just put the message in my public treasure chest and close the lid. Now even they can not open it again. Only I, with my unique private key, can open the chest.
After I generated the public keys, I don't really need them any more, unless I want to send messages to myself. But no one needs the private key to lock a message. The private key is only required to open a message.
I don't see anything that is technically incorrect about the PKI explanation in the graphic. Do you care to explain what is wrong with it? netrin's quote is cool for the noobs, but it doesn't mean that what is in the graphic is incorrect at all. Both quotes are very correct and explained differently. Yeah. Here's a magical analogy for public key cryptography: I generate a private key and numerous public unlocked treasure chests. I give these open treasure chests to all of my friends (it's easy to copy them). Whenever a friend wants to send me a message, they just put the message in my public treasure chest and close the lid. Now even they can not open it again. Only I, with my unique private key, can open the chest.
After I generated the public keys, I don't really need them any more, unless I want to send messages to myself. But no one needs the private key to lock a message. The private key is only required to open a message.
I'd like to know what Glenn exactly wears
Awesome graphic.
I used to love reading Spectrum when I was a young EE/CS student. I also like the graphic.
Relatedly, this is the coolest bitcoin infographic I've seen:
I really like this as well. Look forward to infographics like these and more in the Bitcoin Magazine in the future. We were a bit too busy last month to include more than 2 into the first issue. I agree with our marketing lead Mihai Alisie that they are crucial for bringing new blood.
Seems decent, except for the "public key cryptography 101" box: analogy with a pair of keys is confusing and wrong. My favorite explanation is the one I stumbled upon on this forum (not sure if Netrin came up with it or he adopted it) -
Yeah. Here's a magical analogy for public key cryptography: I generate a private key and numerous public unlocked treasure chests. I give these open treasure chests to all of my friends (it's easy to copy them). Whenever a friend wants to send me a message, they just put the message in my public treasure chest and close the lid. Now even they can not open it again. Only I, with my unique private key, can open the chest.
After I generated the public keys, I don't really need them any more, unless I want to send messages to myself. But no one needs the private key to lock a message. The private key is only required to open a message.
Yeah. Here's a magical analogy for public key cryptography: I generate a private key and numerous public unlocked treasure chests. I give these open treasure chests to all of my friends (it's easy to copy them). Whenever a friend wants to send me a message, they just put the message in my public treasure chest and close the lid. Now even they can not open it again. Only I, with my unique private key, can open the chest.
After I generated the public keys, I don't really need them any more, unless I want to send messages to myself. But no one needs the private key to lock a message. The private key is only required to open a message.
Love it.
My guess is that Post #3 will be addressed and Matthew will have this as the centerfold in some upcoming issue of Bitcoin Magazine.
~Bruno~
hero member
Activity: 588
Merit: 500
Hero VIP ultra official trusted super staff puppet
Relatedly, this is the coolest bitcoin infographic I've seen:
I really like this as well. Look forward to infographics like these and more in the Bitcoin Magazine in the future. We were a bit too busy last month to include more than 2 into the first issue. I agree with our marketing lead Mihai Alisie that they are crucial for bringing new blood.
Seems decent, except for the "public key cryptography 101" box: analogy with a pair of keys is confusing and wrong. My favorite explanation is the one I stumbled upon on this forum (not sure if Netrin came up with it or he adopted it) -
Yeah. Here's a magical analogy for public key cryptography: I generate a private key and numerous public unlocked treasure chests. I give these open treasure chests to all of my friends (it's easy to copy them). Whenever a friend wants to send me a message, they just put the message in my public treasure chest and close the lid. Now even they can not open it again. Only I, with my unique private key, can open the chest.
After I generated the public keys, I don't really need them any more, unless I want to send messages to myself. But no one needs the private key to lock a message. The private key is only required to open a message.
Yeah. Here's a magical analogy for public key cryptography: I generate a private key and numerous public unlocked treasure chests. I give these open treasure chests to all of my friends (it's easy to copy them). Whenever a friend wants to send me a message, they just put the message in my public treasure chest and close the lid. Now even they can not open it again. Only I, with my unique private key, can open the chest.
After I generated the public keys, I don't really need them any more, unless I want to send messages to myself. But no one needs the private key to lock a message. The private key is only required to open a message.
Love it.
Seems decent, except for the "public key cryptography 101" box: analogy with a pair of keys is confusing and wrong. My favorite explanation is the one I stumbled upon on this forum (not sure if Netrin came up with it or he adopted it) -
Yeah. Here's a magical analogy for public key cryptography: I generate a private key and numerous public unlocked treasure chests. I give these open treasure chests to all of my friends (it's easy to copy them). Whenever a friend wants to send me a message, they just put the message in my public treasure chest and close the lid. Now even they can not open it again. Only I, with my unique private key, can open the chest.
After I generated the public keys, I don't really need them any more, unless I want to send messages to myself. But no one needs the private key to lock a message. The private key is only required to open a message.
Yeah. Here's a magical analogy for public key cryptography: I generate a private key and numerous public unlocked treasure chests. I give these open treasure chests to all of my friends (it's easy to copy them). Whenever a friend wants to send me a message, they just put the message in my public treasure chest and close the lid. Now even they can not open it again. Only I, with my unique private key, can open the chest.
After I generated the public keys, I don't really need them any more, unless I want to send messages to myself. But no one needs the private key to lock a message. The private key is only required to open a message.
Relatedly, this is the coolest bitcoin infographic I've seen:
Jump to: