Unicity – A Dinosaur Discussion Not for Newbies.
in [Cryptography]
|
Prev: Call for papers: ISP-10, USA, July 2010
Next: Final: An obvious pattern found in the first 37Million Prime Sums using the log of the golden ratio Lp!
From: Pubkeybreaker on 9 Mar 2010 10:17 On Mar 9, 9:55 am, adacrypt <austin.oby...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 9, 1:25 pm, Phoenix <ribeiroa...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > My question. > > > Why you did not compete at NIST new cryptographic hash Algorithm > > Competition? > > Hi, > To be perfectly honest I haved not taken the trouble to pursue the > procedure for submissions to NIST since I know almost nothing about > them and frankly I baulk at the prospect of being patronised by those > good people. Almost, but no. The correct way for adacrypt to have punctuated the previous sentence would have been for him to place a period after the word "nothing".
From: Pubkeybreaker on 9 Mar 2010 10:18 On Mar 9, 10:07 am, Tom St Denis <t...(a)iahu.ca> wrote: > On Mar 9, 9:55 am, adacrypt <austin.oby...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 9, 1:25 pm, Phoenix <ribeiroa...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > My question. > > > > Why you did not compete at NIST new cryptographic hash Algorithm > > > Competition? > > > Hi, > > To be perfectly honest I haved not taken the trouble to pursue the > > procedure for submissions to NIST since I know almost nothing about > > them and frankly I baulk at the prospect of being patronised by those > > good people. The same goes for the IACR (International Association > > for Cryptologic Research) - I detest their reviewers and would not > > expect honest treatment from what I call an intransigent dishonest > > establishment - ditto for the mathematical societies although I am a > > member of one of these but only in a passive way. > > ** Sci crypt research would not publish my recent submissions** - I > > found that particularly insulting. > > So just to be clear it's never occurred to you that your stuff is not > accepted by mainstream scientists because it's garbage? What do you have against garbage? adacrypt's babblings are not good enough to qualify as garbage.
From: J.D. on 9 Mar 2010 10:45 On Mar 9, 8:25 am, Phoenix <ribeiroa...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > My question. > > Why you did not compete at NIST new cryptographic hash Algorithm > Competition? The difference between a crank and a snake-oil salesman is that a crank is under the delusion that he is right, while a snake-oil salesman wants _you_ to be under the delusion that he is right. Snake- oil salesmen do not waste their time and effort trying to market their bullshit to people who are eminently qualified to detect it as such.
From: Maaartin on 9 Mar 2010 12:13 On Mar 9, 4:45 pm, "J.D." <degolyer...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mar 9, 8:25 am, Phoenix <ribeiroa...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > My question. > > > Why you did not compete at NIST new cryptographic hash Algorithm > > Competition? > > The difference between a crank and a snake-oil salesman is that a > crank is under the delusion that he is right, while a snake-oil > salesman wants _you_ to be under the delusion that he is right. Snake- > oil salesmen do not waste their time and effort trying to market their > bullshit to people who are eminently qualified to detect it as such. So do you REALLY mean, he is no crank???
From: WTShaw on 9 Mar 2010 16:23
On Mar 9, 4:24 am, adacrypt <austin.oby...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > . > I am promoting two new forms of cryptography i.e. vector > cryptography and scalable key cryptography from my two websites > calledhttp://www.adacrypt.comandhttp://www.scalarcryptography.co.uk > respectively. > > Both of these new crypto-types are drawing very great interest judging > from the visitors to the sites which numbers more than 153,000 so far > and from the many communications that I am getting also. > > Both crypto types use very simple mapping and mutual database > technology in which Bob becomes Alices server and Alice the client in > a closed-circuit crypto- system that is privy to themselves alone. > The cipher text is no more than mark-up of a special kind. > > The point I wish to make here is that future cryptography will > certainly not use any extracts from Claude Shannons information > theory and least of all unicity theory. > > I am an admirer of Claude Shannon and he is pictured on the home page > of both of my sites but I want to make it clear that the party is over > for all complexity theoretic cryptography that used operand-embedded > cipher text in the past and indeed it is time for modern researchers > to start getting real about this fact. > > Pulling old role-models out of retirement in a recent posting and > pretending that there is still worthwhile discussion is a lie and is > confusing to any newbie who will be sent the wrong way by believing he > is being given the latest information when in fact that is truly > redundant information and is worse than useless. > > The handbook called Handbook of Applied Cryptography is rapidly > becoming obsolete also for the reason that only the first 20 pages > that are generally applicable to any part of all future cryptography, > is now the only part of the book that is worth reading the rest of > this once great book is now defunct because it relates to defunct > algorithms. > > None of these algorithms produced the ultimate high class of > theoretically unbreakable ciphers so badly needed now by national > governments - my cryptography does - adacrypt > . The devil is in the details. The problem with Shannon is not viewing him as a humble contributer, reading less of him than more, He is both relevant and irrelevant and understanding why is important. As long as government have a hammer, they tend to reduce all arguments to nails, delicate processes notwithstanding. |