RIPPLE THE FUTURE OF CBDC's

[HAL1000]

https://ripple.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/cbdc-whitepaper-2020.pdf

[thinlyspread]

I personally still think that Chaumian e-cash or Bitmint type solutions are superior to whatever blockchain/ILP solutions Ripple is proposing, for the base issuance. Current distributed ledger tech is an Alan Turing moment waiting to happen – a national security horror story. 

China knows this, which is why it trialled Qpay and is going for token-based over account-based (blockchain) systems. Secured by quantum-sourced randomness aka Vernam ciphers (which is the only provably unhackable method) vs algorithmic complexity (XRP, BTC, etc, aka "well it's not been hacked YET and it's very very hard!").

[thinlyspread]

There's also a very, very good reason why e.g. the US Navy don't use cryptography for top-secure comms, but use ciphers, OTP, etc. Imagine having your nuclear codes exposed because your advanced blockchain cryptography got hacked by China's latest quantum computers. 

[Julian_Williams]

7 hours ago, thinlyspread said:

I personally still think that Chaumian e-cash or Bitmint type solutions are superior to whatever blockchain/ILP solutions Ripple is proposing, for the base issuance. Current distributed ledger tech is an Alan Turing moment waiting to happen – a national security horror story. 

China knows this, which is why it trialled Qpay and is going for token-based over account-based (blockchain) systems. Secured by quantum-sourced randomness aka Vernam ciphers (which is the only provably unhackable method) vs algorithmic complexity (XRP, BTC, etc, aka "well it's not been hacked YET and it's very very hard!").

Quantum Computers are a threatto blockchains, even DS admits he is thinking about the threat.  Educate us.  Is it inevitable that  ripplenet/ODL be superseded and how soon?

[peanut56]

On 7/6/2017 at 5:42 AM, JoelKatz said:

Yes. Additional algorithms can easily be added, just as we added Ed25519. Existing accounts can be re-secured with a new key if desired. So you won't need a new ripple address.

We haven't actually added any quantum-safe algorithms yet because none of the ones available today are perfect for our use case. And any algorithm we add we'll have to support forever. So we'd prefer to wait as long as we safely can so that we'll have the most information to make the choice of algorithm(s) to implement.

[thinlyspread]

14 hours ago, Julian_Williams said:

Quantum Computers are a threatto blockchains, even DS admits he is thinking about the threat.  Educate us.  Is it inevitable that  ripplenet/ODL be superseded and how soon?

I think this tech e.g. XRPL still plays a huge part esp. in managing accounts/issuers; it's just we can't have the entire GDP of a major nation dependent on one or two massive points of failure being (worse case) the cryptography itself being cracked (not to mention a public ledger with potential network issues/failures/51% type hacks/etc – lots of "unknowns uknowns"!). Since one cannot crack randomness ciphers, this bedrock is at least a safe foundation for building on top of. Just my 2c. 

[thinlyspread]

13 hours ago, peanut56 said:

On 7/6/2017 at 10:42 AM, JoelKatz said:

We haven't actually added any quantum-safe algorithms yet because none of the ones available today are perfect for our use case. And any algorithm we add we'll have to support forever. So we'd prefer to wait as long as we safely can so that we'll have the most information to make the choice of algorithm(s) to implement.

Yeah I've read things like this before from Nikb too, but this doesn't make me feel any better about it – it misses the entire point. This is not a "wait and see" situation – "not been hacked YET" is NOT good enough for the nation state. I don't believe Ripple/devs, who make money selling their cryptography (and in some cases have made it their life's work), can be objective about their cryptography being potentially crackable! This is the entire problem – all these Silicon Valley types are trying to sell THEIR system to the masses including governments. It's is terrifying. Would you trust Google to be objective about the risks of using YouTube?! 

ANY algorithm they implement will still be vulnerable. You can't just keep building bigger walls forever. All cryptography that relies on algorithmic complexity is potentially vulnerable, always will be. Period. That's why you would NEVER EVER use it for e.g. sending nuclear codes! 

[thinlyspread]

 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, thinlyspread said:

Yeah I've read things like this before from Nikb too, but this doesn't make me feel any better about it – it misses the entire point. This is not a "wait and see" situation – "not been hacked YET" is NOT good enough for the nation state. I don't believe Ripple/devs, who make money selling their cryptography (and in some cases have made it their life's work), can be objective about their cryptography being potentially crackable! This is the entire problem – all these Silicon Valley types are trying to sell THEIR system to the masses including governments. It's is terrifying. Would you trust Google to be objective about the risks of using YouTube?! 

ANY algorithm they implement will still be vulnerable. You can't just keep building bigger walls forever. All cryptography that relies on algorithmic complexity is potentially vulnerable, always will be. Period. That's why you would NEVER EVER use it for e.g. sending nuclear codes! 

Unknown threats is a key reason why CBDCs are not on public blockchains. Don’t worry.

Also, no one has more advanced quantum computing hardware than Google. Not even nation states. Things that are on the cutting edge, like nuclear and quantum computing, it’s a small circle. Everyone knows exactly what everyone else is doing. 

I don’t want to downplay the risks, but it’s not time to worry yet. QC resistant algorithms are being developed too. 

[thinlyspread]

16 hours ago, Ripley said:

Unknown threats is a key reason why CBDCs are not on public blockchains. Don’t worry.

I know but... government agencies can be so stupid...  

16 hours ago, Ripley said:

I don’t want to downplay the risks, but it’s not time to worry yet. QC resistant algorithms are being developed too. 

It's more that we don't KNOW the risks, we just assume things like, as you said, oh Google have this, and the Chinese have that, and such and such... reality is, they're 'unknown unknowns'. That's the entire issue facing algorithmic complexity. It could be there are breakthroughs right now that are as top secret as Turing's Enigma or flying saucers (i.e. by which I highly advanced military aircraft experiments!). And so forth. 

On the topic of quantum secure algorithms WITHOUT using 'greater complexity', there is some hope with David Chaum... (interestingly, xx uses the same token-based approach NOT account based; more related to Qpay/e-cash/Bitmint than bitcoin, XRPL, etc). Larsen is backing Chaum & xxNetwork for good reasons. Personally I think e-cash  is the future for CBDCs, using blockchains for tracking & admin. 

Edited January 10, 2022 by thinlyspread