I do understand. I understand sha256 and Schnorr, as well; with quite a bit of depth. In the early days of bitcoin, when everything was DIY and you were basically hardening your own keys… it v much was part of the bitcoin process. Elon likely remembers and talks and that vernacular.
You cannot the separate the act of owning and protecting.
nostr:nprofile1qqsxwkuyle67y94tj378gw8w2xw2wa6nwmwlqhddlwnz0z7sztsaw2qpr3mhxue69uhkummnw3erztn5w4hxuetvwdshguewvdhk6tcpr4mhxue69uhkummnw3ezucnfw33k76twv4ezuum0vd5kzmp0u0ad9g ill take this a step further… people are wanting to sound smart like they understand the difference between cryptography and encryption and so they’re dunking on Elon… by doing so, they detract from what is important.
Secure messaging.
That's fine, but I wasn't trying to criticize Elon, i was addressing the phrase "bitcoin-like encryption". What does it mean? It doesn't mean AES in any cipher mode, which is what a lot of wallets use, nor chacha20/poly1305 as used in network messages like in bip324.
It doesn't mean those things, because they are not remotely *specific to bitcoin*.
So whatever it does mean, imo it is almost certainly a bad and misleading phrase to choose.
I’m not sure if you’re trying to subtly attack secp256k1 or rust or what you’re getting at
? I don't know how else to say it; the phrase "bitcoin-like encryption" is bad because there is no form of encryption that is intrinsically tied to bitcoin, mainly because the bitcoin protocol does not use encryption.
Heck, even ECIES using secp256k1 would not be "bitcoin-like encryption" just because it uses that curve.
Okay but most people who have experience with encryption know what he’s talking about… also do you pay for the E2EE like are you actually a paying customer of his? Because I am. And he’s delivering the results I’m asking for… starting with this conversation from his post. I had no trouble following it at all. In fact, other Bitcoin developers and I jumped right on what we thought would be best practices in this specific scenario… and it was derived from backgrounds in Bitcoin work.
Like you literally aren’t making sense… “does indeed use this curve”, “cannot be used to describe potential other uses cases related to technologies that use this curve”
wtf?
