It's anonymous. Details are left out. Keys go basically like this:
Public & private key pair each for You and Alice -- that's 2 mated keys apiece.
Take message "Hello." and scramble with a public OR private key.
Now you have gunk "09D7C1".
ONLY the mated public/private key can decrypt and reveal "Hello.".
When you send to Alice you encrypt with her public key so that ONLY she can decrypt -- with her private key.
But first you encrypt with YOUR private key! (AND THEN encrypt THAT with Alice's public key.)
So then:
Alice gets the gunk.
(operation 1) Decrypts with her private key.
Just more gunk.
(operation 2) Decrypts THAT with YOUR public key.
Now she sees "Hello.".
Operation 1 is the true encryption: only Alice's private key mates to successfully decrypt.
Operation 2 is the authentication: only your public key mates to successfully decrypt, which proves that it was encrypted with YOUR private key -- Alice is assured it was sent by you AND it hasn't been modified.
These are not the *precise* details of a Bitcoin transaction; yet this *IS* the technology.
NONE of the key material is sent: the reciever must find the package and understand which keys to use to decrypt -- you tell Alice "I just sent you something". On the network it IS just anonymous gunk.
Details omitted include tracing by network activity: even though the package is anonymouse & safe, if you know the computer that sent it is Sony's head office, then you know someone sent it from that machine
And of course the underlying security of encryption & authentication lies in the pseudo-inability to crack the keys. It IS possible, and heavy government machines do it. All this IS addressed in Bitcoin's design in a form.
Nope! They are not mutually exclusive. Bitcoin says the xactions are stored anonymously: your key is not stored; you encrypt and send. Nobody can decrypt unless they know the public key needed to decrypt: you tell only the recipient to expect coins from you, and TJEY use your public key to decrypt & cash in. Nobody knows anything except that in the network of, if you have the key(s) that fit what's been sent to you then it belongs to you.
If they really gave such a crap about the problem they would not make confusing stupidity that is rooted in vain glory, and instead they would write clearly what's wrong. And start a civil suit if they can. That way our grandparents can get involved too.
Parody weenies just want to get their privates stroked by being known as "the one that exposed it all".
Whoever "moderated" this with some kind of "-1" is a fucktard -- just another overly-rich pampered and "protected" backstabbing fleck of shit floating in a drop of cum at the tip of satan's dick, this bitch would not get the time of day from me in an actual --- read: "not virtual" --- interaction.
One word:
bicycle.
OK, want another one:
Scooter.
How about four:
Left foot, right foot.
Like "conserving" is a new concept. If you are driving something that gets less than 30 MPG you are a pig.
Hitler had more than 200 backers.
What are you producing buddy
In America there is talk of free speech. Some people understand that this freedom might need to be enforced.
The post labled as the First Mention of a Compact Disc is in error. The "Disc's" the user is referring to are actually vinyl discs. He's pointing out that analog media exhibit the same shrinking resolution at lower levels as do digital and that the noise floor in analog media is more intrusive.
Digital tape -- and hence likely the A/D and D/A's the post is discussing -- has been in use in professional recording studios for a long time -- the 70's. The CD was not introduced until 1985.
To keep the 'record' straight.
For real digital heads: All television -- good old analog NTSC -- going back a long time has gone through a digital signal processor as a part of broadcast conformance. And most people (being on a PC right now) will gather, the earliest digital technologies go back decades before the 70's and 80's and "the CD". ~This might pose fun research for the interested.
Peace,
Steev.
Re:Nobody does long storylines anymore. Even PBS.
on
Life Interrupted
·
· Score: 1
The real reason an intelligent person won't read electronic content past one bullet point is that the rest of the post is self-aggrandized wanna-be garbage!
... "Is" is more.
As is evidenced by Google's late venture to catalog library content, information that is potentially good for searching is best marked up at the source -- indexed if you would.
Search engines are ultimately bound to fishing under thier original paradigm. I believe it is such that Google sorts results based on how many references a given result has and/or how many other results or pages link to it. Since even that concept is specious, it behooves the search user to "keep the result pool clean": Don't post false or misleading information, and in the face of this reference searching, don't quote specious material!
- Steev.
Slashdot Mirror
It's anonymous. Details are left out. Keys go basically like this: Public & private key pair each for You and Alice -- that's 2 mated keys apiece. Take message "Hello." and scramble with a public OR private key. Now you have gunk "09D7C1". ONLY the mated public/private key can decrypt and reveal "Hello.". When you send to Alice you encrypt with her public key so that ONLY she can decrypt -- with her private key. But first you encrypt with YOUR private key! (AND THEN encrypt THAT with Alice's public key.) So then: Alice gets the gunk. (operation 1) Decrypts with her private key. Just more gunk. (operation 2) Decrypts THAT with YOUR public key. Now she sees "Hello.". Operation 1 is the true encryption: only Alice's private key mates to successfully decrypt. Operation 2 is the authentication: only your public key mates to successfully decrypt, which proves that it was encrypted with YOUR private key -- Alice is assured it was sent by you AND it hasn't been modified. These are not the *precise* details of a Bitcoin transaction; yet this *IS* the technology. NONE of the key material is sent: the reciever must find the package and understand which keys to use to decrypt -- you tell Alice "I just sent you something". On the network it IS just anonymous gunk. Details omitted include tracing by network activity: even though the package is anonymouse & safe, if you know the computer that sent it is Sony's head office, then you know someone sent it from that machine And of course the underlying security of encryption & authentication lies in the pseudo-inability to crack the keys. It IS possible, and heavy government machines do it. All this IS addressed in Bitcoin's design in a form.
Nope! They are not mutually exclusive. Bitcoin says the xactions are stored anonymously: your key is not stored; you encrypt and send. Nobody can decrypt unless they know the public key needed to decrypt: you tell only the recipient to expect coins from you, and TJEY use your public key to decrypt & cash in. Nobody knows anything except that in the network of, if you have the key(s) that fit what's been sent to you then it belongs to you.
If they really gave such a crap about the problem they would not make confusing stupidity that is rooted in vain glory, and instead they would write clearly what's wrong. And start a civil suit if they can. That way our grandparents can get involved too.
Parody weenies just want to get their privates stroked by being known as "the one that exposed it all".
P.S.
I'm American.
You, sir, are correct, sir.
Whoever "moderated" this with some kind of "-1" is a fucktard -- just another overly-rich pampered and "protected" backstabbing fleck of shit floating in a drop of cum at the tip of satan's dick, this bitch would not get the time of day from me in an actual --- read: "not virtual" --- interaction.
Can I patent verbs daddy?
One word: bicycle. OK, want another one: Scooter. How about four: Left foot, right foot. Like "conserving" is a new concept. If you are driving something that gets less than 30 MPG you are a pig.
Hitler had more than 200 backers. What are you producing buddy In America there is talk of free speech. Some people understand that this freedom might need to be enforced.
You may be right -- I might have that date a little skewed -- but the poster's "Disc" was indeed a vinyl one; this is the message's context.
The post labled as the First Mention of a Compact Disc is in error. The "Disc's" the user is referring to are actually vinyl discs. He's pointing out that analog media exhibit the same shrinking resolution at lower levels as do digital and that the noise floor in analog media is more intrusive. Digital tape -- and hence likely the A/D and D/A's the post is discussing -- has been in use in professional recording studios for a long time -- the 70's. The CD was not introduced until 1985. To keep the 'record' straight. For real digital heads: All television -- good old analog NTSC -- going back a long time has gone through a digital signal processor as a part of broadcast conformance. And most people (being on a PC right now) will gather, the earliest digital technologies go back decades before the 70's and 80's and "the CD". ~This might pose fun research for the interested. Peace, Steev.
The real reason an intelligent person won't read electronic content past one bullet point is that the rest of the post is self-aggrandized wanna-be garbage!
... "Is" is more. As is evidenced by Google's late venture to catalog library content, information that is potentially good for searching is best marked up at the source -- indexed if you would. Search engines are ultimately bound to fishing under thier original paradigm. I believe it is such that Google sorts results based on how many references a given result has and/or how many other results or pages link to it. Since even that concept is specious, it behooves the search user to "keep the result pool clean": Don't post false or misleading information, and in the face of this reference searching, don't quote specious material! - Steev.