Indeed, major cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum have maintained their security quite well — better, arguably, than any other digital asset/payment system in history …
Yeah, the MULTOS-based solutions seem to be fairing quite well. Mondex did, too, on its software and protocol assurance. The weakness was storing the value on a card with limits on tamper-resistance. There’s cryptocurrency “wallets” essentially doing the same thing with less security put into their software stacks. A few HSM’s and smartcards are also doing better on the hardware side for tamper-resistance. That different banks use different ones to check transactions within and between banks adds security through diversity.
I think the claim is well-refuted between the stronger implementations of prior work and fewer known compromises.
For the past few days/weeks, I’ve been piecing together a theory. We like to solve problems, but that only creates new problems. In other words, solution is just another way to spell tomorrow’s problem. Two very nice examples for my evidence bucket here.
“We like to solve problems, but that only creates new problems. “
Not true even though it looks good on the surface. Maybe true but not as much as it seems. I’m not sure. The counter I have in mind is there’s at least two ways to solve problems:
Use a solution that worked for something similar whose justifications/assumptions also fit the current context pretty well. Modify it carefully introducing just enough additions to get the job done.
Use a novel idea whose potential drawbacks aren’t well-understood instead. This creates new problems at a much faster rate. The new problems can also be catastrophic.
The cryptocurrency people are doing No 2 when doing No 1 makes more sense. This is also true for many crowds in tech aside from cryptocurrencies. Also, No 1 always makes more sense by default.
Some guy once said something sort of like that before: “One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies.”
That’s a hell of a claim.
Yeah, the MULTOS-based solutions seem to be fairing quite well. Mondex did, too, on its software and protocol assurance. The weakness was storing the value on a card with limits on tamper-resistance. There’s cryptocurrency “wallets” essentially doing the same thing with less security put into their software stacks. A few HSM’s and smartcards are also doing better on the hardware side for tamper-resistance. That different banks use different ones to check transactions within and between banks adds security through diversity.
I think the claim is well-refuted between the stronger implementations of prior work and fewer known compromises.
For the past few days/weeks, I’ve been piecing together a theory. We like to solve problems, but that only creates new problems. In other words, solution is just another way to spell tomorrow’s problem. Two very nice examples for my evidence bucket here.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/u14GpzuTBjg?start=1176&end=1196
@tedu, you may enjoy this track by Laurie Anderson.
“We like to solve problems, but that only creates new problems. “
Not true even though it looks good on the surface. Maybe true but not as much as it seems. I’m not sure. The counter I have in mind is there’s at least two ways to solve problems:
Use a solution that worked for something similar whose justifications/assumptions also fit the current context pretty well. Modify it carefully introducing just enough additions to get the job done.
Use a novel idea whose potential drawbacks aren’t well-understood instead. This creates new problems at a much faster rate. The new problems can also be catastrophic.
The cryptocurrency people are doing No 2 when doing No 1 makes more sense. This is also true for many crowds in tech aside from cryptocurrencies. Also, No 1 always makes more sense by default.
Some guy once said something sort of like that before: “One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies.”