On 05/11/2015 11:31, Simon Josefsson wrote:
There is not a lot of cryptocurrency standardisation going on in the IETF, alas. What do
you think about using the term "proof of work" in the title instead? It appears
to be the cryptographic property that cryptocurrencies (and other applications!) want
from a primitive. I perceive that other PoW-ideas may be standardized in the IETF before
currencies are.
If argon is being proposed for a proof of work only then it should not
include cryptocurrency in the title.
Also, standardisation in the cryptocurrency world works a bit different
to how it works in IETF WG fashion - I'm not sure I can see the
benefit. Standardisation works best when the system is already out
there and in use, not as sort of trial balloon - is argon in use in any
systems as a PoW?
Colour me skeptical!
iang
Have you or anyone provided security reductions for Argon2 btw? Similar to the
reductions that are available for Catena. They would help to substantiate any
claims in the document that Argon2 is secure for its intended uses.
/Simon
Alex Biryukov <alex(_dot_)biryukov(_at_)uni(_dot_)lu> skrev: (5 november 2015
12:07:17 CET)
We discussed it briefly, would it be possible to add "cryptocurrency"
to
the title to cover two main usage areas. Then it would make sense to
keep
both Argon2i and Argon2d in the standard.
"The memory-hard Argon2 password and cryptocurrency hash function
draft-josefsson-argon2-00
_______________________________________________
openpgp mailing list
openpgp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp