[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: subjective names and MITM
At 12:51 AM 10/6/95, Scott Brickner wrote:
>A public key *is* "very probably unique". A "randomly selected" 1024 bit
>prime number has a specific amount of entropy in it. The likelihood of
>two users world wide "randomly" choosing the same such prime may be
>precisely determined (assuming you can figure the entropy).
>Who needs a KCA to certify it?
>The real benefit of the KCA is as a means of linking the key with a unique
>person. As I've commented before, anonyms have no meaningful "credit rating".
If I understand your usage of "anonym" correctly, I think you are clearly wrong.
An anonymous agent who has no persistence (no past history, no continuing
history, no expectation by others of future history) probably has no credit
rating, no "reputation."
However, an anonymous agent _with_ a persistent presence can have a credit
rating or reputation. Many examples of this, e.g., Pr0duct Cypher, Black
Unicorn, S. Boxx, and others.
The "linking with a unique person" is not especially important, IMO.
Views here are not the views of my Internet Service Provider or Government.
Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
[email protected] 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^756839 | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."