[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Cryptography] Review of UBIC
- From: grarpamp <grarpamp AT gmail.com>
- Subject: Re: [Cryptography] Review of UBIC
- Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 01:27:32 -0500
- Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass email@example.com header.s=20161025 header.b=Q0S9SdSG; spf=pass (google.com: domain of cypherpunks-bounces AT lists.cpunks.org designates 126.96.36.199 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=cypherpunks-bounces AT lists.cpunks.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com
- Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=sender:errors-to:list-subscribe:list-help:list-post:list-archive :list-unsubscribe:list-id:precedence:to:subject:message-id:date:from :references:in-reply-to:mime-version:dkim-signature:delivered-to :arc-authentication-results; bh=+ZtlhGfWwRMjlTterBJYlPLTWt+qTyKTWSrj8cT5zQY=; b=uyqO0zvWj6/Tu9WvOHvufALDYG6OfM3l+vsAMepKQMALE5H7mwmJmqIs3wxZhV3Jv9 c+KlHOcOzUS5Pigs27voPuv2+y4xR70GEl3hknj6gbHdMTjOU6OGvryXUeB1nBvu7UNz K7rStcgOITWmnSAgFpjd/RSPPQDUSGAiJzudJzKViL1OMESaHyq38bVjKFq0RCe7Qlmj ajOUT7AlgD1SisOa+6HT9+52z+6luf2EgVizM6+fXPqAi49e5ldIQxg+/a7L5xYs+TwA sTaCEWGUbirA0jj+RjU0+24WPln4sxnRPvrsJo+sHjiPR78ah9gEeEYNBvKQmI54iXBd e7zA==
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1519799375; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=mgxNZ9bojPzjqu9sJFyjGuCZQUqFCGq8YHl94PLDLZONT3DDsAffLsahCooIsS26Ue 6HcnMy2Wl7/tZpDJTGHe0+zhX0OdF8o3lx+Hfm4L9O6YAtZv57obItmH5k5mVu8BEvNl 7zbp2py/6c/jEBl/CkW2Il8eSPTunKYcF+icwlrMFO0yvvNBCuyf9REICuj6MNBYKMjb XVKb13AxW2NEYxnFxYzbkiH/1I9tpe6lGg1rRDjDsrAhhFbaCyW4PpQD7blHAVk+4Ypt zgyYNMhP89cHaKFtz7XUtVBIL1VklsJ3umXkXaIXwXw56bEJRjtg1JBcr/Cafq5IZw+8 aUoA==
- List-archive: <http://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/>
- Sender: "cypherpunks" <cypherpunks-bounces AT lists.cpunks.org>
- To: "cryptography AT metzdowd.com" <cryptography AT metzdowd.com>
On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 4:49 PM, Ubicorn via cryptography
<cryptography AT metzdowd.com> wrote:
> we have released a cryptocurrency called UBIC that distributes a universal
> basic income to it's users.
> We solved the sibyl attack by requiring users to scan the NFC chip of their
> The process works this way:
> - The user reads out the PKCS7 file contained on the E-Passport.
> - A non-transerable proof of signature knowledge is created on one of his
> UBIC addresses using the document signing certificate contained in the PKCS7
> - This proof is broadcasted and included in the blockchain
> The source code of the project can be found here:
> The non-transferable proof of signature knowledge for ECDSA signatures is
> generated here:
> and for RSA signatures here:
> We are a little bit unsure if our non-transferable proof of signature
> knowledge for RSA is completely secure because we had to hack it a little
> It is based on on the Guillou-Quisquater protocol where the challenge has to
> be smaller than the RSA exponent.
> However because the document signing certificate exponents are almost every
> time 65537 we generate 5 proofs of 16 bit entropy each.
> What are your opinions on this?
It will fail since its "UBI" distribution must end as long
term the cryptocurrency reaches forex equilibrium and
thus fails to deliver "ROI", unlike businesses that can.
Those without passports won't "invest" aka buy it, nor
benefit from it, thus it'll remain massively underexposed
to free markets. The leading open cryptos will provide much
more "return" to more people before equilibrium. So UBIC
coins, be they pure and simple cryptocurrencies, are moot.
Nor does the UBIC above have any whitepaper or roadmap
in the repo saying anything about what its prospectus is.
Though as with any other coin, its tech might be
useful to integrate somewhere else. Such as
potential form of wallet 2FA, identity assertion
into blockchain, etc.