 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
If you are using some sort of hash to reduce biometric data to a short string, there's a risk that such algorithm could be reverse-engineered to brute force large numbers of potential keys. The whole point of private keys is that they are uniformly random, and human biometric data is not random and not uniformly distributed.
Yes, you're right, I'm starting to understand. It comes down to the low entropy of biometric data. |
|
|
|
|
[[/quote]
But what is to care about here is the entropy(randomness) of the private keys generated this way IMO. Because if the entropy is too weak, hackers will be able to identify ranges of keys likely to be generated and used, and will be able to concentrate their computing power on them. The strength of BTC private keys is too be highly unpredictable and independent from each other. Initially, guessing a random private key is in the same order of magnitude as guessing the geodetic coordinates of a random atom in the whole universe, that won't be the case anymore with a system like that I think.
[/quote]
This is exactly the kind of counter argument I was hoping for. You're right, the entropy of biometric data is too low, it's just not a good starting point.
I guess it could be used to open a wallet in rather secure way if you combine things like heart beat pattern, voice, prints, etc. backing each others up.
But even then, it's not that much of a step forward...
|
|
|
|
Generation of Cryptographic Keys from Personal Biometrics: An Illustration Based on FingerprintsPatent No.: US 10,454,677 B1 Oct. 22, 2019 Cryptographic key generation from biometric dataPersonally, I think there are problems. First, the purpose is not clear. It is easy enough to generate a private key from biometric data, as every person has a sufficient number of differentiating features that makes them unique. But, if the intention is to use these metrics directly instead of simply generating a private key, then I see problems. - A person's biometrics may change over time, resulting in a different key.
- The measurements themselves are not precise enough to generate the same key each time.
- Anything that takes the measurements gains access to the private key.
- The association of a person with their private key cannot be broken.
Thanks! Btw, I added an edit to the post. Here is my input to your four points: - A person's biometrics may change over time, resulting in a different key.
Yes, unless the "reduction process" that you use to obtain that simple string from a huge amount of data, allows to actually obtain a constant string.
In oher words, despite that the huge amount of data (human body or whatever) evolves, it is still immensly similar to what it was during the last measurement, and thanks to that, I think it could be possible to use a reduction (hasing is a reduction for instance) that spits out the same string. But that's what I wanted to learn about with this post. - The measurements themselves are not precise enough to generate the same key each time.
Same argument as previous point. The measurement is not perfect, but the amount of data gathered during the measurement is so immense that, with the right "reduction process", it would counter, from far, inaccuracies. - Anything that takes the measurements gains access to the private key.
That seems to be a common fear today, however, I did not mention fingerprints. And, even if we speak about this very narrow thing that fingerprints are, how often do people actually get robed their fingerprints to access their phones, bank accounts, etc...and steal everything with that fingerprint. I am not aware of such a global issue.. Anyway, it is an interesting topic too, but it is not the point of this post. - The association of a person with their private key cannot be broken.
You mean that this link is for life, and that's a problem, right? I think you have a point there and this is critical. But I also have a gut feeling that there is a solution to that. I would have to dig deeper though. But for now, you're right that's an obstable.
[/quote] CHeers!
Is it possible to build a reproducible ID, or string of characters, from a bunch of biometric measurements?
Why the heck would you even think about doing something like this?! I never liked using biometric data for anything in life, because it can be big intrusion of privacy and it's not that hard to clone biometric data. Once this information leaks it's forever and you can't turn it back or change your biometrics, and using this for bitcoin private key would be pure waste of time. Because, a private key needs to be unique and constant, as far as i know.
That means that you can only have ONE bitcoin private key in your entire life ... based on your ''unique'' biometrics  Wheter you like it or not, linking your online possessions to your biological body will happen, because this body of yours is ultimately THE thing that wants these possesions. But fear not, future tech will make this process anonymous.
In the end, is it possible to make a reproducible private key from biometric data?
Because, a private key needs to be unique and constant, as far as i know.
I have limited knowledge on bio-metric data. Theoretically it could be possible to develop a set of integers based of it but I doubt it would be compatible with a private key format. If it indeed was possible, it would be a bad idea. Besides how many places we touch daily, our finger print is on the database of at least a handful of systems and presents a privacy concern. Private keys are already unique and constant. - Jay - Hi, and thanks for the answer. If you could create a string of integer, why wouldn't it be possible to transform it into a private key format? Btw, I added an edit to the OP. Cheers |
|
|
|
|
Hi everyone,
I have a question related to building a private key based on biometric data.
Is it possible to build a reproducible ID, or string of characters, from a bunch of biometric measurements?
Given the fact that biological systems (humans in that case), evolve, get damaged, etc..
In the end, is it possible to make a reproducible private key from biometric data?
Because, a private key needs to be unique and constant, as far as i know.
Thanks!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for the answers, but I have neither mentionned bitcoin, fingerprints, nor the intended application, so please do not over interpret my question.
Any biological system is evolving over time, getting damaged, etc... One might be tempted to say that it is impossible to produce a constant string of caracters from such an evolving system. However, because producing the string is an immesse reduction of information, I think it is theoretically possible to create a string that would be constant despite the evolving system.
If you would know of any papers on the subject, I would gladly read them, thanks!
|
|
|
|
... a global government but without the corruption and inefficiency sides.
Well, that would be pretty hard to achieve, I would say. I think it's fairly safe to say that such a system of governance would be incredibly difficult to create. In fact, I hardly think such a system would be even slightly possible, given the current state of technology and the nature of human beings. However, even if such a system were created and it worked, I doubt that it would be the best form of government for humanity as a whole. As an aside, I don't think there is such thing as "the best form of government." Each system has its own strengths and weaknesses, and what works for one society may not work for another. Of course, I suppose this is only one interpretation. The idea makes for some good philosophical debates, at least. Your answer is the one I agree with the most in this thread, it would be incredibly difficult, and it would not be perfect. But the goal is not to make something easy, not perfect. This DAGG would just improve fairness and efficiency. That's all there would be to it. definitely not pretending to make the world a better place, since I do not know what is a better wolrd. I don't think I'm underrating the value of such a system. I think it could be quite helpful to everyone involved (except the criminals, of course), and that it would simplify governance a lot. I don't know if it can ever be successful, but as long as there are people who are willing to work towards such a system, I don't see why we shouldn't try our best to pursue it. I'm a big believer in the idea that blockchain can potentially help make many things more fair and efficient. It will take time to make this vision a reality, but the more good projects we see come to pass, the better! That's right, thank you. |
|
|
|
... a global government but without the corruption and inefficiency sides.
Well, that would be pretty hard to achieve, I would say. I think it's fairly safe to say that such a system of governance would be incredibly difficult to create. In fact, I hardly think such a system would be even slightly possible, given the current state of technology and the nature of human beings. However, even if such a system were created and it worked, I doubt that it would be the best form of government for humanity as a whole. As an aside, I don't think there is such thing as "the best form of government." Each system has its own strengths and weaknesses, and what works for one society may not work for another. Of course, I suppose this is only one interpretation. The idea makes for some good philosophical debates, at least. Your answer is the one I agree with the most in this thread, it would be incredibly difficult, and it would not be perfect. But the goal is not to make something easy, not perfect. This DAGG would just improve fairness and efficiency. That's all there would be to it. definitely not pretending to make the world a better place, since I do not know what is a better wolrd. |
|
|
|
Thanks for the links! They're a good read. THe reason such a projct is very difficult is not because of who you need to be to acheive it, but because of the complexity of the implementation. ETH did not succeed because it was backed by powerful entites, but because it offered a new paradigm for businesses, and in concrete terms it offered new business opportunities. The same way, this DAGG will not be adopted because of its powerful backers, but because of the opportunities it will offer in the realm of governance, political and ethical decsion making. This efficiency will translate into more fainess, but it would be adopted mostly because it will translate into higher growth. So, who you are does not matter much in this context, but what you implement will make it work or not. |
|
|
|
|
Thank you for the interesting answers! I did not expect that many.
Thank you @Orpichukwu for the links.
I will try the write a draft soon to be clearer about the mechanisms of the DAGG.
One main critic in the answers is that powerful entities and leaders will oppose this DAGG, in order to keep their power. Quite the opposite, the DAGG will have incentive mechanisms and being a more efficient system, there will be some advantages to plug to it. In fact, if you don't plug, you will eventually lose your power. Some people building layer one blockchains or Dapps on ETH were powerful people in the traditional economy; did they give up their power to plug Dapps on ETH? No, they saw an opportunity and a market, and so will it be with entities plugging to this DAGG. Although it will deal with political and ethical opportunities rather than just economical.
Now, it's a Herculean task to design this structure and incentive mechanisms. It's indeed all about the implementation, but I beg to differ with people saying straight on that this idea is never going to work because of powerful people or the issues of current decentralized networks, that's just a lack of imagination about the implementation.
Cheers!
|
|
|
|
that would set the rules to how countries, institutions, people and businesses, crypto included, interact with eachother. Well, a global government but without the corruption and inefficiency sides.
This type of work or research won't be followed. Of what value will you create when you do such research and no government is taking to the work on your direction to follow and get things done efficiently. It will only become a theory that you made or it will happen to be advise you make for government to stop the corruption but you can't enforce anything to be obeyed, just the formality of the research but not follow up I have not given any technical details of how that would be done, yet you are already so pessimistic. These entities would not work in my direction, they would have an incentive to join, but in joining they'd have to obey the ground rules. The goal is not to stop corruption, that's just be a side effect of more transparency. Thank you for answering. |
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I am interested in doing research related to the idea of developing a Decentralized autonomous global government, that is a coded open source entity that would set the rules to how countries, institutions, people and businesses, crypto included, interact with eachother. Well, a global government but without the corruption and inefficiency sides.
Does anyone know about serious articles, posts, research on this subject? Thought and ideas welcome too.
Thanks in advance,
FX
|
|
|
|
|
