Regardless of whether it's eroding trust in cryptography today, I still assert it was a reasonable choice when the term was coined. Cryptocurrency depends fundamentally on cryptography.

just because it uses sha256 as it's proof of work doesn't make it crypto, as it was essentially picked out of a hat.

You could probably switch proof-of-work to use some non-cryptographic primitive with similar properties (maybe protein folding?) and it would still serve the same purpose, ignoring the economic problems. I will concede that point.

Bitcoin still cannot function without cryptography. Each UTXO is bound to a particular key pair. Each block refers to its parent using a hash. If either of those were switched to a non-cryptographic primitive, there would be no way to authenticate the owner of a UTXO, nor would there be a way to prove the ordering of blocks. Removing cryptography from cryptocurrency would make it entirely useless as a currency.

And for the signing of transactions, are we going to start calling bank checks crypto?

Banks existed for a thousand years without the existence of cryptography. If you removed cryptography from RCS, you'd still have the rest of the standard for messaging.

[–] ysjet@lemmy.world 1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

But you wouldn't be able to authenticate the bank transfers- or messages- as real. It's the exactly same situation the so-called cryptocurrencies run in to, and why all three have added signatures onto it. That doesn't make any of the three cryptography- just something that exists better with the support of cryptography.

A cryptocurrency can exist without the signature- it's less useful, but 'just trust me bro' is basically THE underpinning for first currencies since the beginning, and the source of a lot of the problems with them.

[–] cadekat@pawb.social 0 points 4 weeks ago

A cryptocurrency without crypto is just a currency then?