On Tue, 20 Feb 1996, t byfield wrote:
At 6:46 PM 2/20/96, IPG Sales wrote:
Hedging, hedging, hedging - why? I did not noitice this <...>
IPG, why don't you sit down and draw up the terms of a challenge? Specify:
B> * what information and/or materials IPG will release
* to whom it will release them and when * who is or isn't elligible * what you will and won't accept as "breaking your system" * the arbitrating body * a starting time and a deadline * the award
You'd do well to be _very_ thorough in these terms, since any perception that IPG was trying to throw the game would draw that much more fire. You'd also do well to make terms terms conform to real-world circumstances: for example, if someone hacking the office machines on which which you generate, store, and/or disseminate RNs is a practical threat to your product, then admit that as an acceptable part of a "break."
Ted
It seems to me that Cypherpunks, the mailing list of individuals, has a very practical solution to the argument - Derek asked for certain things - we agreed fully with those terms - we will provide the complete set of algorithms employed - we will also provide a free demo system(s) - > Unlike Mr. Silvernail, we have a much simplier definition of what we mean by a one time pad - given a message/file of length N, where N is a finite practical number say less than 10 to the 1000th power, that the encrypted ciphertext can be any of the N to the 256th power possibile clear/plain text messages/files. To prove that the IPG system does not work, all you have to do is to prove that is not the case - that our system, without artifically imposed boundary conditions will generate a subset of those possibilities - that is simple and strsight forward - not hyperbole but action - everyone stated how simple it was to break the system, now everyone is back paddling aa fast as they can, like Mr. Metzger and some of the other big bad cyphermouths. Put up or shut up - why is everyone all of a sudden backing away from what Derek proposed - because we proposed a two way street - operhaps that is the real underlying problem - you are suddenly afraid that you are wrong - some of the cyphermouths want to argue semantics and abstract theory but no one wants to prove anything one way or the other - this is also my answer to Mr. Metzger - do as you like, I have absolutely no ability to force you to do anything, just like you have no ability to prove us wrong, absolutely zero ability, just talk, talk, and more talk - no substamce anymore - just talk - talk - we are the big bad wolf, doctor, that is going to kill our patients, you have the power to prevent that Perry - why don't you do it? You had rather sit omn the sideliunes and tell everyone how great you are - you are not concerned about the patients like you claimed yesterday, you are only concerned about youself - You have the ability to try to prove us wrong - do it. How about some action from someone, we have two taker - now, anymore? I do not want to argue semantics with Mr. Silvernail, or Mr. Metzger - they have an opinion - that does not prove them right - they are entitled to their opinion - but they would rather castigate us out of hand than prove us wrong - they want to talk, talk, talk but not do anything. It is obviously that both are dodging the issue, by taking their own narrow minded view of what is and is not the truth - both are all talk but no action - a lot of bull and arbitrary posturing, but that is all itis, pure unadultarated bull - . They are afraid they may be wrong and they most assuredly are - I believe our offer to be fair, let us hear what Derek has to say when he gets around to it. Let Derek, Inccarth, and Adam be the aribtion committee, decide whether the system is fataklly flawed or not - we will accept their findings subject to only one caveat, that they have the intellectual honesty to tell the truth. I believe that since Mr. Silvernail and Mr. Metzger have exluded themselves, that Derek, Inccarth and Adam do have that intellectual honesty to tell the truth - is that weighted too much in IPGs favor. Also, let them decide and report to the other Cypherpunks, whether we were justified in witholding broad dissemination of certain materials - the onlu caveat there is that they wait threee months, or until they break the system to make that report, and again conform to a high standard of intellectual honesty. What can be more fair than that, you own members can be the entire judging committee - are you afraid of the truth - if you cannot accept that you are. Tthat could be your only real reason fornot facing it. I believe that many of you are now backtracfking because you are afraid of the truth - we invite whatever number you might choose to try - if some subset of Cyberpunks break the system, then they can publish everything - Sigh -