What’s up today?

1 Like

Pretty big thread. Maybe worth mentioning Safe?





SAFE isn’t even here yet and we’re possibly already a major step closer to:

From the article, “For instance, it enables the creation of “deniable” encryption, in which you can plausibly convince an attacker that you sent an entirely different message from the one you really sent”.

Also re: ““functional” encryption, in which you can give chosen users different levels of access to perform computations using your data.” it would be interesting if SAFE data permissions could be baked directly into the encryption itself.

SAFE, so secure it doesn’t even exist [as far as you know].


It’s sad. I don’t think there is any decent substitute for doing your own due diligence and investments. Asking others to manage your money is a huge level of risk all by itself … and then they go and invest/loan to others -adding another layer of risk.

When it comes to your wealth, being lazy and taking shortcuts has a huge risk to reward ratio.

It is very, very foolish to risk something whose price goes up a million times (Yes bitcoin has gone up 1.5 million times in 10 years, Ethereum 4000 times in 4 years. These are times, not percentages!)

The good thing is that there are cryptocurrencies that pave the way for decentralized interest without risk (you keep your keys and give your own interest, just as when you mine Bitcoin you give yourself bitcoin)…

I’m not sure where you are getting this:

The link you have there doesn’t have that quote/info.

But on this topic, I’d point out that we have ways to disguise traffic already (developed for tor but applicable to other projects, maybe Safe as well)

1 Like
1 Like

We really need decentralized network and more and more people know about it.

The Irony …


:thinking: the assumption that Government is more important than the People, is at the heart of the rot. Encryption is a fundamental right, as much as privacy is. The onus being put on the individual to proof innocence, is the kind of error that follows though on these assumptions.

Government does not understand its mandate!


And yet some call them conspiranoids…


And they never will.

I understand the interpretation of the old Second Amendment of the US being about the right to keep and bear arms in order for the people to be able to defend themselves against their own potentially oppressive governments. The problem is that times, and arms, have changed. A musket (or a shotgun) is of no use against drones and gas. At the same time, I wouldn’t like to see ordinary people arming themselves with weapons that could actually be effective in an armed conflict against a government.

The main weapons today, defensive as well as offensive, are computers and the knowledge of how to use them. This, of course, includes cryptography, but it requires access to information and education, which I believe should be a fundamental right for everybody, regardless of their financial status.

Maybe something like this would be good:
The right of the people to learn about, keep and use Computers shall not be infringed.

Government will always error and be stupid at times but the natural mandate for Government is not complex. The mandate for any Government follows from a base interest in defending individuals against stupidity that they cannot contend with themselves. The opportunity of all is enhanced by having representation that defends us all but that does not suggest that Government should impose stupidity as if Government’s interest in simple lazy solutions is more important than individual rights. The same mandate from the social contract between individuals and those who represent the collective shared interests, is the basis of all good law. We should expect better.

Principle must always underlie function, otherwise there is only a line in the sand that shall be moved with the will of man for good or evil.

The State has only one underlying principle, theft – to loot at the point of a gun - to do so successfully, at least at first, they must deceive people as to the real ends of the gun.

Hence, the more they are able to take, the more they will dare to take - the line in the sand shall be moved unless good people can genuinely fight back or at least defend against the theft.

We have alternative currencies now and they are getting better all the time - that is our means to defend, supposing we can keep our encryption; then we can keep our wealth from these monsters.


From the Quanta Magazine article:

“That includes both classic cryptographic tasks like public key encryption (which is used in online transactions) and dazzling newcomers like fully homomorphic encryption, in which a cloud computer can compute on encrypted data without learning anything about it. And it includes cryptographic protocols no one knew how to build, like deniable or functional encryption.”

This really looks very interesting. I suspect that the homomorphic encryption is something that could allow reasonable cloud computing on Safe!