[Cryptography] Thoughts about keys
guido at witmond.nl
Tue Sep 10 05:00:24 EDT 2013
We really have different designs. I'll comment inline.
On 09/09/13 19:12, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
> On 09/09/13 13:08, Guido Witmond wrote:
> I like to look at it the other way round, retrieving the correct
> name for a key.
> You don't give someone your name, you give them an 80-bit key
> fingerprint. It looks something like m-NN4H-JS7Y-OTRH-GIRN. The m-
> is common to all, it just says this is one of that sort of hash.
> There is only one to remember, your own.
If I read it correctly, each participant has one *single identity*?
Eccentric does it the other way around, with ecca, you have one or more
different identities at *each* site. At least one. But if you want to
blog different topics under different id's, no problem. Create another
I think there are good reasons for having multiple *independent*
identities. For example, if your writings get too hot for the blog site
owner and they close one account, it doesn't affect the other accounts.
If you want, you can destroy the private key so there is nothing that
traces you to that account.
Or if you want, you can post a proof of ownership of the private key of
the account, to show that the site censured a really good post. They
closed the account but can't invalidate your key. Again, other accounts
are still unaffected.
[Taken out technical description]
> He then checks that you are someone he thinks you are, eg from the
> photo, checks the fingerprint, and if he wants to contact you he has
> already got your public key.
As you and I have never met, I can't validate your photo, neither half
your claimed penis size. ;-)
How do I know it's not a Man in the Middle using your picture?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 897 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the cryptography