If you secure any of that data with encryption, then you don't need bitcoin. Emails? Encrypt them and a Google hack is still fruitless. Change address, require a key sigature, moving the Bitcoin requires the same but costs mining fees, a signature costs nothing but a few CPU cycles. You're adding unneeded costs. Cryptography already defends against the phsical realm. No amount of kinetic energy can break a signature, or encryption. Why spend sats if this is true? Requiring bitcoin as payment to decrypt or receive a digital signature is fine, but that's just one size of the trade. The other is just cryptography. No value transfer needed.
Replies (4)
No bitcoin needed. Beautiful.
Softwar is retarded.
I tend to see the added costs as added security. For example if encrypted data keys were compromised and on the other hand bitcoin keys were compromised... the attacker would have to want what the bitcoin gave them access to more than the bitcoin. Whereas if the attacker had the encrypted keys, as you say, it "costs nothing" for the attacker to gain access.
Ah, you mean that something is unlocked only if you send a certain amount to a certain address? Sounds like you'd need CTV for that. Still not understanding how the execution of a transaction is linked in any way to unlocking data. What part of the that transaction decrypts the data lying at rest? Or is there some other unlocking machanism?
