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: adacrypt on 9 Mar 2010 05:24 .. I am promoting two new forms of cryptography i.e. vector cryptography and scalable key cryptography from my two websites called http://www.adacrypt.com and http://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 ..
From: Phoenix on 9 Mar 2010 08:25 My question. Why you did not compete at NIST new cryptographic hash Algorithm Competition?
From: adacrypt on 9 Mar 2010 09:55 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. I firmly believe that mathematics will always surface in the same way that "murder will out" - I am convinced that the present interest in my stuff by academic groups will eventually lead to it taking off via the web - I know that I am dealing with honest people there at the present time however distant the connection may seem at times - I may be six feet under when my stuff is taken in to main stream cryptography whenever it happens but it doesn't bother me. I hate the dishonesty of the herd and the peer pressure to conform. Mathematicians are the most intransigent of all the scientists in my view given that that they are dealing with the most transparent of all subjects that is totally lacking in human subjectivity but they still try to corrupt it with self and ego. - Cheers - Austin
From: Tom St Denis on 9 Mar 2010 10:07 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? Just saying, if you were truly a scientist you'd be open to the possibility that you're wrong. Tom
From: Noob on 9 Mar 2010 10:15
Tom, Did you let the kooks and cranks out of your kill file? Regards. |