Talk:Commitment scheme

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Commitment scheme article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Mathematics Mid‑priority Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-priority on the project's priority scale. Cryptography: Computer science High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cryptography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computer science (assessed as High-importance).

Link to external site

Is there any good reason why this page doesn't give a link, in the external links section, to a site such as [1] which will actually calculate the commitment? (I got that link from Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-05-14/Committed identity.) --Coppertwig (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is useless, since it lacks … a real-world example … for humans.

How would such an exchange actually look?
In human words.
— 81.173.138.89 (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a rock/paper/scissors example in the intro, but it isn't really comprehensible currently. I'll try to rewrite it. — J D (talk) 14:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the rock/paper/scissors example from the intro and replaced it with a simple analogy, and I rewrote the first section of the article (coin flipping) so that it is intelligible to a general audience. Success? — J D (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non-constructive (misleading?) sentence?

This sentence seems out-of-place:

This scheme isn't perfectly concealing as someone could find the commitment if he manages to solve the discrete logarithm problem.

If someone did solve that problem, the entire internet would break - and there's no suggestion that someone could find that solution anytime soon as far as I know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8000:1A99:9A00:CC32:4655:2CD0:1A1B (talk) 13:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not out-of-place: the problem with solving the discrete logarithm is that all known algorithms are slow, not that there are no known algorithms. Perfectly concealing means concealing against adversaries even with unbounded computational resources. (This is discussed at several places in the article.) --JBL (talk) 18:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will it ever be fixed?

≈≈ ₯₯°₯₯ We never know... ₯₯°₯₯ ≈≈ ∞

Finnh54 (talk) 11:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC) Finnh54 (talk) 11:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]