Has Chainlink Solved Cryptography?!

[Anonymous No.11830255]

I think Chainlink enables the "holy grail" of cryptography known as online one-time padding.

One time padding involves all parties sharing a key used to encrypt a message but it's a bit of a chicken and egg problem since you first need a secure way for everyone involved to share the key. For this reason it's been relegated to an offline encryption method only (I write the key down and walk it over to your house).

Buuuut now with Chainlink data provider oracles on a blockchain it seems you can just enter a smart contract with all involved parties and the Chainlink node will generate a key for all parties to use through the contract which distributes it securely via the blockchain.

Now you might say, well in this case you're trusting a third party, namely the Chainlink node operator, that he/she won't snoop on the key generated for you and look at your data... Very valid concern. But, Chainlink nodes can implement Intel SGX enclaves where nothing, not even the OS can see what's being processed by the node. No way for the node operator to see the key that his/her computer generated for you.

Seems to me we've arrived at a way for secure online distribution of symmetric keys (vs the current public/asymmetric system)... And that's huge.

[Anonymous No.11830305]

Based as fuck
We /flip btc/ in 2019

[Anonymous No.11830328]

Checked and based as fuck
We /flip btc/ by eoy 2019

[Anonymous No.11830329]

>>11830255
What is the implication of this, what will this enable?

[Anonymous No.11830339]

Oh wow, you managed to figure something out that Sergey spoke about at CESC and we have all discussed extensively since. You're a genius.

[Anonymous No.11830343]

>>11830329
It means literally nothing. Except that OP is a faggot.

[Anonymous No.11830354]

>>11830339

[Anonymous No.11830385]

>>11830339
I am extrapolating from that, yes. There was one thread about this I found in the archive and that's it.

>>11830329
It potentially changes how we handle encryption/security online in the future.

[Anonymous No.11830393]

>>11830329
It means that chainlink is the first crypto since Bitcoin and Ethereum to actually provide any kind of value to the DLT scene.

[Anonymous No.11830451]

>>11830255
How would a smart contract securily distribute it over the blockchain?

How is this not trivial to solve with asymmetric encryption?

I'm literally right now writing code encrypting a symmetric key with recepient's public key

[Anonymous No.11830470]

>>11830255
CHekt + based as fucccck

[Anonymous No.11830477]

>>11830451
These are the kind of things I'm looking for people with more understanding of cryptography to comment on. I have a degree in computer engineering so I understand the concepts well but I don't have an in depth knowledge of cryptography specifically.

[Anonymous No.11830515]

>>11830255
Imagine if something called RSA existed. Now pretend like the average link holder understands why the first sentence is relevant.

>Hint: they probably don't.

[Anonymous No.11830527]

>>11830451
>I'm literally right now writing code encrypting a symmetric key with recepient's public key
this

[Anonymous No.11830542]

>>11830515
>Imagine if something called RSA existed.
this, kek

[Anonymous No.11830552]

>>11830477

...just imagine being this retarded. This stuff you is literally the basics of encryption, that you would get from opening any book.

[Anonymous No.11830553]

what even is cryptography? I keep forgetting thats the whole basis of BTC

[Anonymous No.11830559]

>>11830477
fucking make an effort, it isn't that hard

[Anonymous No.11830584]

Is symmetric/private key not better than asymmetric/public? Seems the argument so far is well yeah, I can just use public key. But if we had a secure way to distribute private keys, isn't that a better way?

[Anonymous No.11830593]

>>11830255
You're almost right, but Sergey himself said the SGX method was just a layer of obscurity - It's highly possible to extract data being processed by an SGX, but most people won't go through the trouble. In fact, there's a strong argument against using this layer of security at all because it promotes centralization when only nodes who can afford an SGX will have that badge of honor and people will keep choosing them over the consumer grade nodes.

[Anonymous No.11830599]

>>11830255
this chainshit meme has been going on for over a year
still isn't funny
and you're still poor

[Anonymous No.11830612]

>>11830451
>encrypting a symmetric key with recepient's public key

This. It's been solved. In a far more provable way with audited libraries. Claiming that Link has developed a magic system to secure symmetric keys inside a magic oracle is known in the industry as snake oil.

There is more to OTP than the bullshit OP is talking about.

Read: https://lists.cpunks.org/ & https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ mail lists and get a clue. Throwing buzzwords around is only going to fool so many people.

[Anonymous No.11830625]

>>11830593
Are SGX nodes that much more to implement? Isn't it just a matter of running your node on an Intel cloud instance vs an AMD one and then setting it up via software?

[Anonymous No.11830628]

>>11830255
its a good first attempt for a band aid solution

[Anonymous No.11830651]

>>11830625
In that case, who actually owns all the computation? And what are the two points of failure for attackers to compromise ALL the nodes? Intel Cloud, and bugs in Intel SGX itself.

[Anonymous No.11830653]

>>11830542

>Also lmao'ing at linkers implying that a russian gypsy who majored in turfgrass management and a dildo silicone salesman are anywhere near the caliber of Rivest, Shamir and Adleman.

[Anonymous No.11830738]

[Anonymous No.11830784]

>>11830255
Im buying more

[Anonymous No.11830816]

Sergey already stated that for SGX you will need to purchase a premium Link Token that costs 100000 usd and can be purchased if you send a trezor with 1000 eth to cayman islands address

[Anonymous No.11831754]

bump

[Anonymous No.11831792]

>>11830329
Nothing, it's a bunch of made up bullshit.

[Anonymous No.11831805]

>>11830255
>to use through the contract which distributes it securely via the blockchain.
craig wright level cryptobabble
3/10

[Anonymous No.11831811]

>>11830451
The real question is should I buy bitbean

[Anonymous No.11831865]

>>11830328
>checked
Kys newfag