Hacker News Reader

Comment by Imnimo | Hacker News Reader

Maybe this question just reveals that I don't totally understand the underlying system here, but what stops the archaeologist from just unwrapping the sarcophagus off-chain? They don't get paid by the contract, but what if someone who is interested in my secret just pays them in cash?

View on HN

The sarcophagus is Enc_arch(Enc_recip(data)) so unwrapping it off chain isn't useful to them.

The only case it would be useful is if they collude with the recipient. I'm not sure how this procotol disincentives this.

Right, I get that, but presumably I don't want the recipient to have it unless the switch goes off, or else I wouldn't be using this system - I'd have just given it to the recipient unencrypted.

That's why the archaeologists are supposed to be a disinterested third party, you essentially pay them (and they forfeit their collateral) to not unwrap it.

I think the archeologists need to agree to unwrap sarcophagus, so the logic is the same as any other blockchain – anyone with 51% control can do whatever they want, otherwise you need coordination between parties that are only incentivized to act "properly".

Oh, I didn't get that from the whitepaper. They seem to use 'archaeologist' singular a lot of the time when it's unclear if they actually mean plural. So is it like some sort of n-of-k encryption where you need a majority of the archaeologists' keys to unwrap the outer layer?

I was wondering the same thing, there's nothing stopping the archaeologist from unwrap it it off-chain/offline/...?

Either we're missing something from the unwrapping process, or there's too much trust put into the archaeologist.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com