Timeline for Encryption in Solidity - and yes of course the plaintext will be visible
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 27, 2019 at 3:22 | vote | accept | Burrough Clarke | ||
| May 26, 2019 at 14:52 | answer | added | Linmao Song | timeline score: 1 | |
| May 26, 2019 at 7:32 | comment | added | goodvibration | I cannot answer this, because I am not sure what exactly your use-case is (you haven't posted a single line of code). | |
| May 26, 2019 at 7:05 | comment | added | Burrough Clarke | So how are you suggesting you compare the hashes entirely via a smart contract when one is encrypted and the other isn't? | |
| May 26, 2019 at 7:00 | comment | added | goodvibration |
Well that does not require encryption, that requires verification, and for that you can use Solidity's built-in function keccak256.
|
|
| May 26, 2019 at 6:54 | comment | added | Burrough Clarke | The use case is this: I need to check that a message submitted is the same as a message that has been encrypted with a public key. The only way to do this is to also encrypt the submitted message with same public key, and then hash both messages. | |
| May 26, 2019 at 6:48 | comment | added | goodvibration |
Yes, since both the plaintext and the ciphertext will be visible to everyone, a good enough function would be function encrypt(string plaintext) public pure returns (string) {return plaintext;}
|
|
| May 26, 2019 at 6:39 | history | edited | Burrough Clarke | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited tags
|
| May 26, 2019 at 6:32 | history | asked | Burrough Clarke | CC BY-SA 4.0 |