Why I can't sleep soundly with blockchain, being the cypherpunk

[vdo]

On 08/30/2017 07:36 AM, Sergey Matveev wrote:
> Greetings, fellow cypherpunks!
>
> There is so much hype about blockchain technologies! Everyone is
> fascinated about it, dream about wonderful bright cryptofuture, and
> stops talking with me, when hears that I do not find blockchain either
> interesting or useful.
>
> Why I do not like blockchains? Actually *if they would work*, from
> cryptographic point of view, then I have nothing against! Distributed
> trusted databases, timestamps and consensus making are great things to
> deal with. But unfortunately I see that at least Bitcoin (the biggest
> blockchain in use) has already failed without human-initiated
> regulations[0]. It failed from *cryptographic* point of view.
>
> I am cypherpunk and I am very interested and excited about cryptography
> subjects. Why? Because all of that is based on math and assumptions
> about practical impossibility of reverting many functions (you know,
> some kind of "2^100 of operations are required for ..."). It is valuable
> because you do not have to trust and rely on people *at all*. Well,
> except for cryptographers and similar scientists. People are the problem
> #1 in all security questions. They can be bribed, all of them have their
> price. They are error-prone, not reliable, lie and misbehave easily. I
> can not sleep soundly, knowing that I depend on some human. Cryptography
> world gives unbelievable possibility to eliminate them!
>
> If I can easily remember relatively long passphrase (100-120 characters
> in practice) as a key to proven strong authenticated encryption
> algorithm, then I am confident that my data is safe. I can use
> eavesdropped links and virtually any potentially vulnerable storage when
> cryptography is applied correctly. While noone ever know if quantum
> computers powerful (big) enough will be built, RSA/ElGamal/ECC stay
> pretty safe too. I really love the fact of security risks estimation
> possibility, based on current technology state and progress. People can
> fail you anytime -- only *hope* will keep you calm.
>
> Are you afraid of algorithms breaking possibility? Even one of the first
> encryption algorithm used in computer era -- DES, is still useful and
> secure enough in 3DES composition. If you are still frightened, then
> learn from soviets: their GOST 28147-89 block cipher[1], created in
> 1970s, still has more than 2^200 security margin. Who the hell knows
> what "key meshing"[2] means? But that block cipher has that kind of
> thing, making it immune to Sweet32 attack, appeared dozens of years
> after. Do not overestimate value of performance, by sacrificing its
> security -- perfect advice for sleeping well for years.
>
> But what about blockchains? Citing Ethereum's "problems" wiki page[3]:
>
>      While a cryptographer is used to assumptions of the form "this
>      algorithm is guaranteed to be unbreakable provided that these
>      underlying math problems remain hard", the world of cryptoeconomics
>      must contend with fuzzy empirical factors such as the difficulty of
>      collusion attacks, the relative quantity of altruistic,
>      profit-seeking and anti-altruistic parties, the level of
>      concentration of different kinds of resources, and in some cases
>      even sociocultural circumstances.
>
> Everything is right here. Anyway you *will* depend on people, society,
> its behaviour and huge quantity of empirical factors and assumptions. It
> is not cypherpunk's reliable and risks-predictable world -- it has
> nothing in common. Replacing the need to trust the human, with the need
> to trust the algorithm and technology -- that *is* the exact reason why
> I am interested in crypto. Requiring and depending on society again --
> that is the exact reason why I standing aside from blockchains. They do
> not offer any guarantees[4], but likelihoods, lottery.
>
> Cypherpunk must rely and depend on people as little as he can. Remember
> cypherpunk's manifesto[5] -- spread as little unnecessary information as
> possible, because people *will* find ways how to harm you with it. And
> blockchains are broadcasting permanent storages, where most of them
> (with Zcash[6] exception for example) give you neither privacy nor
> anonymity for your personal (private) transactions.

I don't want to start a shill-flame here but, the only truly private and anonymous blockchain would be Monero, where the privacy is enforced, not optional[0], without shady 'Trusted Setups'[1] or ties with JP Morgan[2].

Unlike Zcash it is backed by OSS community, and the use of ring signatures, stealth addresses and the upcoming integration with kovri (i2p) [3] makes it the most 'cypherpunk' project in the cryptoeconomics sphere IMHO.

[0]
https://www.coindesk.com/hardly-anyone-is-using-zcashs-anonymity-features-but-we-couldnt-tell-if-they-were/

[1]
https://petertodd.org/2016/cypherpunk-desert-bus-zcash-trusted-setup-ceremony

[2]
https://www.coindesk.com/jpmorgan-partners-zcash-team-add-enterprise-security/

[3]https://getkovri.org/

> [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghash.io#51.25_attack_controversy
> [1] http://gost.cypherpunks.ru/en2814789.html
> [2] http://gost.cypherpunks.ru/enMeshing.html
> [3] https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/Problems
> [4] https://tonyarcieri.com/on-the-dangers-of-a-blockchain-monoculture
> [5] https://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/manifesto.html
> [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zcash
>