Replying to Avatar waxwing

Many years ago I had reason to mull over in great detail the question of "why don't banks and government institutions use digital signatures?" (there are many scenarios where this would make processes vastly more easy for users, for the banks themselves, while at the same time making processes more secure. And the common reason for explaining why digital signatures are not used "it's too complex to keep up with key management" only makes sense applied to *users* - banks and similar institutions can easily handle that).

It was interesting to hear people's responses to this question. For example, Mike Hearn basically brushed it off with "they're just dumb" or some flavor thereof, and also pointed out that a bank he had somewhere (California, Switzerland, I forget) actually did offer digital signing. I researched and found one bank in India that claimed to do it but didn't. By chance, a bank in Europe I was using, a year or two later, claimed to offer it *for the users*, and asked me to input my gpg key, which I did, but they never followed up with any functionality at all.

In retrospect I still think my original line of thinking was correct: it didn't pass the lawyers. The most crucial thing about modern digital signatures is their *transferrability*. This means that once a bank signs something, like a statement of account, it can be spread anywhere and is guaranteed to be authentic. This is astoundingly useful *to the bank's clients* but to the bank itself it only represents a liability if they get caught equivocating somehow. Notice how signatures would be useful to the bank at the level of actual transactions (e.g. swift transfers with their peers), but clients are not in the position of actually *transacting* at an equal level; they're just creditors. It's a little like a recent experience of cancelling a UK phone contract: I went through a phone process to cancel it then got charged a bill again; feeling irate, I wanted an email so I could have a record of the conversation I had with their customer service; but they don't offer any email address at all. Only phone or ephemeral chat windows. Same basic thing.

The reason digital signatures failed is no banker understand that digital signatures are not a digital picture of human signature :-) ..

No one explained to them that it is a cryptographic signature .. like in #bitcoin or #nostr .. and even if some bank tech folks understood the idea .. it is far fetched for their normal customer ..

I mean Einsteing couldn't understand Quantum Mechanics :-) .. so ..it is a generational shift !

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

That's basically what Hearn was saying. I disagree; especially as of 2010-2015 when the tech was already very firmly established.

Think in terms of generations ..

I think first truly mass tech gen is 2000 to 2020 .. next is 2021 to 2040 .. I think Digital Signatures shall be common place in banking by after that .. people who are natively born in Crypto world would have a natural affinity ..

I just made up the years .. for example sake

a better way is to think who is the first in our lineage to talk and trade bitcoin .. if it's you , your kids will be comfortable with digital signatures..

Sure, there's a time lag, but digital signatures predate bitcoin by 30 years.

I am the first in my generation to know about digital signature .. my parents used pen and paper 100 percent and my grannys used thumb impression.. I guess , I am better represent of a normie :-) ..

I am pretty sure my kids shall use digital signatures as effortlessly..

I'd be agreeing if we were talking about mass usage, but I'm talking about large institutions using it, not everyday people.

A good analogy might be QR codes; the average user hasn't the faintest clue how it works, but it's easy for companies to implement.