Re: [cryptography] a Cypherpunks comeback
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 3:41 AM, Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org> wrote:
Could you please get another domain name, that name is just ridiculous.
Absolutely. I mean, has anybody actually used JFETs in recent years? :-)
Bill Stewart <bill.stewart@pobox.com> wrote:
Absolutely. I mean, has anybody actually used JFETs in recent years? :-)
Well played, sir. :) By the way, the answer is in most cases no, sadly. Most vanilla CMOS processes don't have high quality JFETs available. On older nodes maybe you can get away with turning an N-well and a P+ diffusion into a JFET, but that doesn't work very well in more modern processes because the N-wells have strongly retrograde doping, which makes it hard to pinch off the "bottom" of the channel. Of course, even at older nodes where it might be possible, the fabs don't bother characterizing it for you. Sure, you can characterize it yourself, but if the fab isn't supporting the device that implicitly means they're not monitoring the quality of that device with their PCM structures, so good luck with manufacturability long-term. JFETs are pretty easy to make in high quality bipolar processes because the base diffusion makes a decent JFET body. Doesn't add much/any cost to have them in this case. Of course, if you have a BiCMOS process, then you already have devices with high impedance gates, but for high performance analog design a JFET beats the hell out of a MOSFET, since the latter brings along with it a shitload of 1/f noise. One place I've recently seen JFETs is in really high voltage processes. Think like a mostly normal 0.18u CMOS process with a 600V (Vds) JFET available. Haven't actually worked in such a beast, but you can imagine that compared to MOSFETs, JFETs don't make such great power devices--- who ever heard of a depletion-mode power switch? -=rsw
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 5:35 AM, Riad S. Wahby <rsw@jfet.org> wrote:
... Most vanilla CMOS processes don't have high quality JFETs available. On older nodes maybe you can get away with turning an N-well and a P+ diffusion into a JFET, but that doesn't work very well in more modern processes because the N-wells have strongly retrograde doping, which makes it hard to pinch off the "bottom" of the channel. Of course, even at older nodes where it might be possible, the fabs don't bother characterizing it for you. Sure, you can characterize it yourself, but if the fab isn't supporting the device that implicitly means they're not monitoring the quality of that device with their PCM structures, so good luck with manufacturability long-term.
JFETs are pretty easy to make in high quality bipolar processes because the base diffusion makes a decent JFET body. Doesn't add much/any cost to have them in this case. Of course, if you have a BiCMOS process, then you already have devices with high impedance gates, but for high performance analog design a JFET beats the hell out of a MOSFET, since the latter brings along with it a shitload of 1/f noise.
One place I've recently seen JFETs is in really high voltage processes. Think like a mostly normal 0.18u CMOS process with a 600V (Vds) JFET available. Haven't actually worked in such a beast, but you can imagine that compared to MOSFETs, JFETs don't make such great power devices--- who ever heard of a depletion-mode power switch?
this is the most informative and useful post ever made in the al-qaeda.net discussion... which happens to be the most ridiculous discussion full of fear and weakness. cypherpunks afraid of a domain name... wtf
Cypherpunks and privacy tech had enough on their plate post 9-11 without inexplicably using an Al-Qaeda related domain name presumably chosen by someone's amusement at being controversial. Its not related to the list, and it just invites spurious trouble. Why not the ownder of the domain use it as his personal address. Heck he can use the user name osama@ the domain if he wants. I have to say I see no upside whatsoever to using that domain name for a mailing list on any topic. You only have to look at various court cases to see how everything gets heavily misinterpreted and nothing spun into something to pause and see why using such a domain name is a "bad idea" tm. I appreciate the "fearless crypto coder" mentality, but focus on the crypto, not inviting stupid fights with authoritarian systems over non-topics eh. Adam On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 01:00:13PM -0700, coderman wrote:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 5:35 AM, Riad S. Wahby <rsw@jfet.org> wrote:
... Most vanilla CMOS processes don't have high quality JFETs available. On older nodes maybe you can get away with turning an N-well and a P+ diffusion into a JFET, but that doesn't work very well in more modern processes because the N-wells have strongly retrograde doping, which makes it hard to pinch off the "bottom" of the channel. Of course, even at older nodes where it might be possible, the fabs don't bother characterizing it for you. Sure, you can characterize it yourself, but if the fab isn't supporting the device that implicitly means they're not monitoring the quality of that device with their PCM structures, so good luck with manufacturability long-term.
JFETs are pretty easy to make in high quality bipolar processes because the base diffusion makes a decent JFET body. Doesn't add much/any cost to have them in this case. Of course, if you have a BiCMOS process, then you already have devices with high impedance gates, but for high performance analog design a JFET beats the hell out of a MOSFET, since the latter brings along with it a shitload of 1/f noise.
One place I've recently seen JFETs is in really high voltage processes. Think like a mostly normal 0.18u CMOS process with a 600V (Vds) JFET available. Haven't actually worked in such a beast, but you can imagine that compared to MOSFETs, JFETs don't make such great power devices--- who ever heard of a depletion-mode power switch?
this is the most informative and useful post ever made in the al-qaeda.net discussion... which happens to be the most ridiculous discussion full of fear and weakness.
cypherpunks afraid of a domain name... wtf
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org> wrote:
[...] "Its not related to the list,"
it is related to the list in the sense of embracing epithets and culling the useless. you've provided this reasoning in measured fashion and various tone repeatedly; believe me when i say i understand exactly what you are concerned about and why you consider this unreasonable. let me be equally clear: cryptography, privacy, and anonymity discussions under any name and forum are appropriate. to censor the medium or message out of fear of misunderstanding is akin to never exercising rights and liberties for fear they may cause scrutiny and disapproval. if this is you: so concerned about unwanted attention, that you'll always consent to a search of your person without resistance, that you'll always hand over keys to your system or provide access to your devices and equipment upon mere request, perhaps when crossing borders, just so you avoid "trouble". if this is you: what the fuck are you doing on a cypherpunks list? cypherpunks write code, especially privacy and anonymity code, which is a much more contentious endeavor than what you are cowed by. this is an impasse, where we agree to disagree. P.S. if you do operate from a truly backward and hostile domain where such a keyword alone is grounds for harassment then you're likely already sub'd via remailers and proxies and multi-hops oh my...
OK let me put it this way, given each person only has so many hours in the day, or so much energy and resources for politically-fighting or write-code-fighting things which would you rather fight: defense of spurious attention arising from a stupid domain name, or I dunno operating a remailer, a tor exit node, a hidden tor server. Apparently operating a hidden tor server as a service is pretty high risk as the guy in Ireland is finding. You can see in that they are trying to pin the content on him, as if he authored it, whereas I am presuming he is no more responsible for the content than a hosting company or youtube. If he was prominently using al-qaeda.net you can be sure they'd have spun that into the story. There is some history also - recall Jim Bell, he got in some fight over taxes or something stupid, that took him out of the picture for a while. I wasnt really sold on his assassination politics idea anyway (gotta be a way to vote someone out of office without assasinating them!), but at least it was a political discussion which he thought had some merit vs a losers game of tax protestation ending in jail time, anyone can see thats never going to work out. I wouldnt be so sure that using stupid domain names is entirely safe in the US, europe etc. IMO the US is past its peak in terms of a place of freedom and others have overtaken it. It doesnt seem likely the US will recover its ranking, seems to be falling year on year. Probably China itself will overtake US economically, politically and for freedoms within 50-100 years. Not sure how you recover freedoms from a panopticon state with a one dollar one vote and a 100 billion dollar+ military-spy-industrial complex and a significantly biased politicial- judicial system. If you watch RT which airs a lot of the snowden thing, the stuff the USG is saying about snowden is just ludicrous. Pressuring european countries to deny overflight to a presidents plane is an alarming breach of international law and shows how far the US rogue state influence goes in seemingly other countries willing to go along with its actions. Also why would you even want to do it? You care about crypto deployment, so I dont see the logic in picking the most stupid, unrelated and controversial domain name you can think of hitting as many peoples distaste as you can and use that? wtf back at you :) cypherpunks@child-porn-r-us.com? what next. I guess we should go write some code! Adam On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 10:02:11AM -0700, coderman wrote:
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org> wrote:
[...] "Its not related to the list,"
it is related to the list in the sense of embracing epithets and culling the useless.
you've provided this reasoning in measured fashion and various tone repeatedly; believe me when i say i understand exactly what you are concerned about and why you consider this unreasonable.
let me be equally clear: cryptography, privacy, and anonymity discussions under any name and forum are appropriate. to censor the medium or message out of fear of misunderstanding is akin to never exercising rights and liberties for fear they may cause scrutiny and disapproval.
On 2013-08-08 10:20 AM, Adam Back wrote:
I wouldnt be so sure that using stupid domain names is entirely safe in the US, europe etc. IMO the US is past its peak in terms of a place of freedom and others have overtaken it. It doesnt seem likely the US will recover its ranking, seems to be falling year on year. Probably China itself will overtake US economically, politically and for freedoms within 50-100 years.
If you want to discuss western politics, you are already safer in China. Chinese politics, not so much. There is a noticeable tendency for neoreactionary blogs to be hosted on servers outside the US and Europe.
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org> wrote:
... which would you rather fight: defense of spurious attention arising from a stupid domain name, or I dunno operating a remailer, a tor exit node, a hidden tor server.
why the false dichotomy? do them both!
... If he was prominently using al-qaeda.net you can be sure they'd have spun that into the story.
i also hear he was also a ginger lacking a soul...
There is some history also - recall Jim Bell, he got in some fight over taxes or something stupid,... it was a political discussion which he thought had some merit vs a losers game of tax protestation ending in jail time, anyone can see thats never going to work out.
are you stating that "So, say goodnight to Joshua ..." in the context of a perceived threat against an individuals family is on the same level of offense as a domain name? really?
I wouldnt be so sure that using stupid domain names is entirely safe in the US, europe etc. IMO the US is past its peak in terms of a place of freedom and others have overtaken it.
all the more reason to resist self censorship and cowardice!
Not sure how you recover freedoms from a panopticon state with a one dollar one vote and a 100 billion dollar+ military-spy-industrial complex and a significantly biased politicial- judicial system.
now _this_ is a discussion worthy of the list. and there are lots of ideas :P
You care about crypto deployment, so I dont see the logic in picking the most stupid, unrelated and controversial domain name you can think of hitting as many peoples distaste as you can and use that?
"embracing epithets and culling the useless."
wtf back at you :)
i am indefensible and unreasonable; let's keep me out of this!
I guess we should go write some code!
agreed; on that note a few resources and projects to make this tirade not entirely useless: "Selected Papers in Anonymity" http://freehaven.net/anonbib/author.html [why does this not have an HTTPS URL?] "Bibliography - GNU's Framework for Secure Peer-to-Peer Networking" https://gnunet.org/bibliography?s=author&o=asc "pentest-bookmarks" https://code.google.com/p/pentest-bookmarks/wiki/BookmarksList "Project Byzantium" http://project-byzantium.org/faqs/ [why does this not have an HTTPS URL?] "Dust: A Censorship-Resistant Internet Transport Protocol" https://github.com/blanu/Dust "The Anykernel and Rump Kernels" https://www.netbsd.org/docs/rump/
Accept anyone's right to say (or register) as they please but reserve the right to think it's dumb. On 8/7/13, coderman <coderman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org> wrote:
... which would you rather fight: defense of spurious attention arising from a stupid domain name, or I dunno operating a remailer, a tor exit node, a hidden tor server.
why the false dichotomy? do them both!
... If he was prominently using al-qaeda.net you can be sure they'd have spun that into the story.
i also hear he was also a ginger lacking a soul...
There is some history also - recall Jim Bell, he got in some fight over taxes or something stupid,... it was a political discussion which he thought had some merit vs a losers game of tax protestation ending in jail time, anyone can see thats never going to work out.
are you stating that "So, say goodnight to Joshua ..." in the context of a perceived threat against an individuals family is on the same level of offense as a domain name? really?
I wouldnt be so sure that using stupid domain names is entirely safe in the US, europe etc. IMO the US is past its peak in terms of a place of freedom and others have overtaken it.
all the more reason to resist self censorship and cowardice!
Not sure how you recover freedoms from a panopticon state with a one dollar one vote and a 100 billion dollar+ military-spy-industrial complex and a significantly biased politicial- judicial system.
now _this_ is a discussion worthy of the list. and there are lots of ideas :P
You care about crypto deployment, so I dont see the logic in picking the most stupid, unrelated and controversial domain name you can think of hitting as many peoples distaste as you can and use that?
"embracing epithets and culling the useless."
wtf back at you :)
i am indefensible and unreasonable; let's keep me out of this!
I guess we should go write some code!
agreed; on that note a few resources and projects to make this tirade not entirely useless:
"Selected Papers in Anonymity" http://freehaven.net/anonbib/author.html [why does this not have an HTTPS URL?]
"Bibliography - GNU's Framework for Secure Peer-to-Peer Networking" https://gnunet.org/bibliography?s=author&o=asc
"pentest-bookmarks" https://code.google.com/p/pentest-bookmarks/wiki/BookmarksList
"Project Byzantium" http://project-byzantium.org/faqs/ [why does this not have an HTTPS URL?]
"Dust: A Censorship-Resistant Internet Transport Protocol" https://github.com/blanu/Dust
"The Anykernel and Rump Kernels" https://www.netbsd.org/docs/rump/
-- "On two occasions I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." -Charles Babbage, 19th century English mathematician, philosopher, inventor and mechanical engineer who originated the concept of a programmable computer.
participants (6)
-
Adam Back -
alex wright -
Bill Stewart -
coderman -
James A. Donald -
Riad S. Wahby