[Cryptography] Cryptographic feasibility of a decentralized trust infrastructure without a master key

[Tom Mitchell]

On Wed, Sep 30, 2026 at 23:57 Jens Weber via cryptography <
cryptography at metzdowd.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I am currently developing the concept for a project called *NOX*. It is
> still at an early architectural stage. Before fundamental technical
> decisions are made, I would like to ask people with substantially more
> experience in cryptography and decentralized systems for critical feedback.
>
> I am the initiator of the concept, but I am not a cryptographer. For that
> reason, I am interested not only in how such an architecture could be
> implemented, but first in a more fundamental question: *Is what I am
> envisioning technically and cryptographically realistic at all?*
>
> The basic idea behind NOX is an international trust, identity and
> authorization infrastructure that could connect independent institutions
> without creating a central database containing everyone's sensitive
> information.
>
> The underlying data could remain where it belongs professionally — for
> example, with hospitals, public authorities, universities or other
> responsible institutions. NOX would operate in the background to verify
> identities and institutional identities, enforce authorization, provide
> cryptographic provenance, and maintain tamper-evident and auditable
> histories.
>
> One fundamental requirement of the concept is:
>
> *There must be no universal master key.*
>
> Neither the operator, a government, an administrator, an investor, nor
> even the founder of NOX should possess a key capable of bypassing the
> security and authorization structure of the entire system.
>
…

> The sensitive records themselves should not simply be placed on a public
> blockchain.
>
> NOX may also contain a *completely separate economic layer*.
>
> ….
>
> *Money or token ownership must never buy data rights.*
>
> Ownership of NOX tokens must not grant access to personal data, medical
> records, personnel records, identities, institutional credentials,
> permissions, or privileged functions of the protected
>

…

> Another part of the concept is artificial intelligence. AI could operate
> in the background to identify contradictions, unusual events, possible
> manipulation, suspicious access patterns
>

A quick read of your outline … it all depends on contract law not
technology.
With multiple international borders any nation could change law and mess
with the system parts that depend on law.

AI (even SI ) is not magic and must see essentially the entire system to
train the AI.
There is no data on day one to train the AI.

My first thought is to assume a magical set of cryptographic tools and map
all the parts and link each with an annotation MCxx (magical cryptography
exchange xx).  Thus map all data flow or links.  Emergency digital medical
information as outlined seems impossible.  Each link has a key that must be
durable, https is not durable.

Then look at the structure and identify attack targets and vectors.
Since it must be financially self supporting, there are payments even tax
liability requiring audit visibility.

*“Money or token ownership must never buy data rights.”*
*How to have money in a system that has no applicability to what money was
invented for?*

>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/attachments/20261001/d2724ae0/attachment.htm>