“.onion addresses and bitcoin addresses are secure and decentralized but not human-meaningful;”
All “crypto as in blockchains” requires trust and buy-in to that blockchain, and someone to put it on the blockchain. It being internally secure/trustworthy does not intrinsically mean it’s globally secure/trustworthy.
Cryptography is not limited to blockchains.
rglullis@communick.news 1 year ago
Sure, for the general case. In practice, we can look at Ethereum’s blockchain which has all the “buy-in” and “trust” enough to the point that it’s used to hold billions worth of value and is secured by the its validator network.
turmacar@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Ethereum has outlasted competing attempts to graft data onto a blockchain. It’s a long, long way from being accepted for general use by anyone who isn’t an enthusiast. The evaluation of a currency/company/blockchain is a measure of investor interest, little more.
You’re also misunderstanding. The problem isn’t whichever blockchain, the problem is that it’s still just a database. Someone has to be trusted to validate an entry. Whether that’s a trusted party, which defeats the point, or a consensus mechanism, which quickly becomes arbitrary/random, that the validation mechanism to interface with the ‘real world’ is the same weak point any other centralized database has. That the nodes are decentralized and cryptographically secure isn’t relevant.
rglullis@communick.news 1 year ago
You have thousands of people running nodes and millions of people already having done at least one transaction, what’s your threshold then?