this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2024
78 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37801 readers
244 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Until homeomorphic encryption becomes a thing, cloud can't be secure or private.
Exchanges, are not wallets. You're supposed to move the coins out of the exchange for safekeeping. If you can't, then it's not a crypto exchange, it's an ETF peddler.
Wallets, are not exchanges. They can link to exchanges, like Metamask does, but their core function is to hold your keys.
Why do you need homeomorphic encryption? Isn't client-side encryption good enough for most use cases?
Yes. Homomorphic encryption is for data processing, not data storage.
I am aware. What processing is only possible in the cloud, and not locally?
Edit: My apologies, I didn't realize you weren't the same person I originally replied to. Please disregard!
Client-side is not cloud.
Yes, you can keep client-side reasonably secure. You can't send the data for cloud processing and seriously expect much security or privacy... for now. Encrypt client-side and use cloud as storage... maybe; encryption algorithms also have a "best by" date.
My point is:
Letting anyone with the ability to switch the software without you noticing, anywhere near the keys controlling some Bitcoin funds, is a really bad idea.