Thread

1. bzmrgonz · 1789618128 · focus · HN ↗

   It baffles that people think it's a bad thing to disclose a public key. That's their purpose actually. Sure we now have the post quantum computer threat, and some state actors are harvesting keys, but quantum computer is going to disrupt so much, that Id verification won't even matter really.

   1. morsch · 1789623646 · focus · HN ↗

      Think about it, the key analogy is just terrible. In the origin domain, losing a key is always bad, and making a key available to all is a non sequitur.

      It's not like non-technical people understand asymmetric cryptography. Or even technical people, for that matter.

      Maybe we should refer to the public key as an address, and the private key is just a password again. You can send stuff, securely, to an address. And you can verify the sender when you have their address (ie check the signature).

      1. VorpalWay · 1789649547 · focus · HN ↗

         An alternative way to think about it would be a padlock and a key. Anyone can close the padlock (assuming the common spring loaded design), but only the key holder can open it.

         While this works for encryption, it doesn't really work for explaining signatures or however. Maybe someone can come up with a good analogy for that case.

         1. waltbosz · 1789654913 · focus · HN ↗

            That's the analogy I was taught in college. The public key is really a padlock that had infinite number of copies, but there was only one key that could open all the padlocks. If someone wanted to send a secret message to the person who owned the key, the would obtain a copy of the padlock, put their message in a box and lock it with the padlock, then send the box to the key owner. The key owner was the only person who could unlock the box and read the message.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.