pull down to refresh

if you explain this to me:
That's not how encryption or secure encryption schemes work. You can't just use any pubkey and think, you can now encrypt anything with it and still pretend like it's secure. You just rolled your own crypto.
Have you asked yourself how encryption schemes are defined?
Since according to my understanding, encryption schemes always include a definition how the keys MUST be generated - even only idealistic ones that are only useful for theory, since they just say that they key must be random.
I mean: Do you really think I can use a RSA key in bitcoin which uses ECC?
How is this unsecure? Aren't gpg users always doing gpg --encrypt --recipient anyway?
I suspect you're thinking of signatures: indeed, signing random shit with your private key just like that isn't a good idea.
Nice assumption, lol, but I agree that this wouldn't be a good idea.
So please do some research before you try to shill anything and stop wasting our time.
It's also not too late to delete your comments and change your nym from @om to something else since I will remember your nym, lol
I mean: Do you really think I can use a RSA key in bitcoin which uses ECC?
Who said anything about RSA?
I recommend looking up how PGP actually works.
This document is so old is doesn't have ECC. But gpg does in fact support ECC.
It's also not too late to delete your comments and change your nym from @om to something else since I will remember your nym, lol
Apparently in your fantasies you have won some cake but I'm still in the dark as to what the attacker is supposed to attack, exactly.
reply
The whole hierarchical deterministic wallet thing, as well as lnurl-auth, are based on the idea that PBKDF is random enough. The only thing that is actually random is the seed.
You have claimed insecurity but I still don't get who's the attacker and what information the attacker learns that he shouldn't have.
reply
random != random
reply
isnan(random) is True
reply