|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
|
|
|
proudhon
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1232
|
 |
May 31, 2012, 05:32:37 AM |
|
Relatedly, this is the coolest bitcoin infographic I've seen:  |
|
|
|
|
|
niko
|
|
May 31, 2012, 06:17:03 AM |
|
Seems decent, except for the "public key cryptography 101" box: analogy with a pair of keys is confusing and wrong. My favorite explanation is the one I stumbled upon on this forum (not sure if Netrin came up with it or he adopted it) -
Yeah. Here's a magical analogy for public key cryptography: I generate a private key and numerous public unlocked treasure chests. I give these open treasure chests to all of my friends (it's easy to copy them). Whenever a friend wants to send me a message, they just put the message in my public treasure chest and close the lid. Now even they can not open it again. Only I, with my unique private key, can open the chest.
After I generated the public keys, I don't really need them any more, unless I want to send messages to myself. But no one needs the private key to lock a message. The private key is only required to open a message.
|
They're there, in their room.
Your mining rig is on fire, yet you're very calm.
|
|
|
|
Matthew N. Wright
|
|
May 31, 2012, 06:22:48 AM |
|
Relatedly, this is the coolest bitcoin infographic I've seen: I really like this as well. Look forward to infographics like these and more in the Bitcoin Magazine in the future. We were a bit too busy last month to include more than 2 into the first issue. I agree with our marketing lead Mihai Alisie that they are crucial for bringing new blood. Seems decent, except for the "public key cryptography 101" box: analogy with a pair of keys is confusing and wrong. My favorite explanation is the one I stumbled upon on this forum (not sure if Netrin came up with it or he adopted it) -
Yeah. Here's a magical analogy for public key cryptography: I generate a private key and numerous public unlocked treasure chests. I give these open treasure chests to all of my friends (it's easy to copy them). Whenever a friend wants to send me a message, they just put the message in my public treasure chest and close the lid. Now even they can not open it again. Only I, with my unique private key, can open the chest.
After I generated the public keys, I don't really need them any more, unless I want to send messages to myself. But no one needs the private key to lock a message. The private key is only required to open a message.
Love it. |
|
|
|
Phinnaeus Gage
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1358
Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending
|
|
May 31, 2012, 06:32:05 AM |
|
Relatedly, this is the coolest bitcoin infographic I've seen: I really like this as well. Look forward to infographics like these and more in the Bitcoin Magazine in the future. We were a bit too busy last month to include more than 2 into the first issue. I agree with our marketing lead Mihai Alisie that they are crucial for bringing new blood. Seems decent, except for the "public key cryptography 101" box: analogy with a pair of keys is confusing and wrong. My favorite explanation is the one I stumbled upon on this forum (not sure if Netrin came up with it or he adopted it) -
Yeah. Here's a magical analogy for public key cryptography: I generate a private key and numerous public unlocked treasure chests. I give these open treasure chests to all of my friends (it's easy to copy them). Whenever a friend wants to send me a message, they just put the message in my public treasure chest and close the lid. Now even they can not open it again. Only I, with my unique private key, can open the chest.
After I generated the public keys, I don't really need them any more, unless I want to send messages to myself. But no one needs the private key to lock a message. The private key is only required to open a message.
Love it. My guess is that Post #3 will be addressed and Matthew will have this as the centerfold in some upcoming issue of Bitcoin Magazine. ~Bruno~ |
|
|
|
|
LightRider
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1492
I advocate the Zeitgeist Movement & Venus Project.
|
|
May 31, 2012, 06:55:38 AM |
|
I used to love reading Spectrum when I was a young EE/CS student. I also like the graphic.
|
|
|
|
|
rjk
|
|
May 31, 2012, 01:18:18 PM |
|
Awesome graphic.
|
|
|
|
|
ThomasV
|
|
May 31, 2012, 01:20:50 PM |
|
I'd like to know what Glenn exactly wears
|
Electrum: the convenience of a web wallet, without the risks
|
|
|
|
rjk
|
|
May 31, 2012, 01:20:58 PM |
|
Seems decent, except for the "public key cryptography 101" box: analogy with a pair of keys is confusing and wrong. My favorite explanation is the one I stumbled upon on this forum (not sure if Netrin came up with it or he adopted it) -
Yeah. Here's a magical analogy for public key cryptography: I generate a private key and numerous public unlocked treasure chests. I give these open treasure chests to all of my friends (it's easy to copy them). Whenever a friend wants to send me a message, they just put the message in my public treasure chest and close the lid. Now even they can not open it again. Only I, with my unique private key, can open the chest.
After I generated the public keys, I don't really need them any more, unless I want to send messages to myself. But no one needs the private key to lock a message. The private key is only required to open a message.
I don't see anything that is technically incorrect about the PKI explanation in the graphic. Do you care to explain what is wrong with it? netrin's quote is cool for the noobs, but it doesn't mean that what is in the graphic is incorrect at all. Both quotes are very correct and explained differently. |
|
|
|
|
Pieter Wuille
|
|
May 31, 2012, 02:10:56 PM |
|
Seems decent, except for the "public key cryptography 101" box: analogy with a pair of keys is confusing and wrong. My favorite explanation is the one I stumbled upon on this forum (not sure if Netrin came up with it or he adopted it) -
Yeah. Here's a magical analogy for public key cryptography: I generate a private key and numerous public unlocked treasure chests. I give these open treasure chests to all of my friends (it's easy to copy them). Whenever a friend wants to send me a message, they just put the message in my public treasure chest and close the lid. Now even they can not open it again. Only I, with my unique private key, can open the chest.
After I generated the public keys, I don't really need them any more, unless I want to send messages to myself. But no one needs the private key to lock a message. The private key is only required to open a message.
I don't see anything that is technically incorrect about the PKI explanation in the graphic. Do you care to explain what is wrong with it? netrin's quote is cool for the noobs, but it doesn't mean that what is in the graphic is incorrect at all. Both quotes are very correct and explained differently. It's also not really relevant, as it describes public-key encryption (which isn't used in bitcoin) instead of signing. |
aka sipa, core dev team
Tips and donations: 1KwDYMJMS4xq3ZEWYfdBRwYG2fHwhZsipa
|
|
|
|
rjk
|
|
May 31, 2012, 02:14:45 PM |
|
It's also not really relevant, as it describes public-key encryption (which isn't used in bitcoin) instead of signing.
OK I can see the confusion then. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
