Talk:Secure multi-party computation

Computing Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cryptography: Computer science Start‑class 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.CryptographyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptographyTemplate:WikiProject CryptographyCryptography
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
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).

shouldn't multiparty computation be written multi-party computation?

Hey! Maybe. What interests me more is a plain English account of a solution to the Millionaire's Problem. An example, please. Paul Beardsell (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link to VIFF

I have just added a link to my own project called VIFF (http://viff.dk/). I hope this is seen as relevant since it is the only project (that I know of) in this area that offers working source code under the GPL. Martin Geisler (talk) 08:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to have a general purpose encrypted computer?

Using something like FPGA's perhaps, would it possible to have a processor of a standard architecture, that is encrypted with arbitrary keys the local machine can't figure out; and can receive, process, and transmit encrypted data without ever decrypting it? How much slower than a plaintext processor of the same architecture would it be? The article mentions writing programs that get compiled into logic gates, and then the logic gates get encrypted; could you write for example an ARM emulator like that, then give it an encrypted image of a disk containing an ARM compatible Linux installation, and have it run it, receiving encrypted inputs, and returning encrypted outputs that would get decrypted in near real-time remotely? Or is there something preventing such encrypted gate arrays from being Turing complete? --TiagoTiago (talk) 02:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]