World Peace isn't insurmountable

Zenaan Harkness zen at freedbms.net
Tue Dec 19 16:05:40 PST 2017


On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 03:35:21PM -0800, Ryan Carboni wrote:
> What if the world isn't dysfunctional? What if it is so by design? What if
> all nonfeasance and misfeasance is really malfeasance? Isn't the difference
> between a democracy and a dictatorship a matter of active consent vs
> passive consent? If five hundred random people were stuffed into Congress
> and made the laws, would they run the country in the same way? Well, I
> suppose there are true heroes, like Litt who said that DES couldn't be
> cracked, and Clapper, who said a "truth" to Wyden who really should have
> known better.
> 
> 
> Anything exceptional that I pointed out is a product of pure deduction, a
> quality few possess, that the school systems intentionally attempt to
> deprive their students of.
> 
> 
> To perhaps parody Cloudflare's complaint about ARX-512 making ChaCha20
> nearly as fast as AES-NI, clearly Linux's /dev/random/ is not fully
> understood and should be avoided. For the entropy estimate only counts the
> entropy of individual events, but not the total combinatorial complexity.
> Since operating systems have no real time guarantee, and all entropy is a
> product of unobserved events, the order in which events occur certainly
> adds entropy. Given that combinatorial complexity is not factored in
> entropy estimates, the entropy estimate should be considered flawed.


So in respect of cryptographic utility,
  entropy ≡ combinatorial complexity


Sounds like howash frankly...



> In fact, this combinatorial complexity significantly impacts one's ability
> to manipulate the output of the generator without knowing the full state,
> and it might be dangerous for /dev/random/ to treat any source of entropy
> as 8 bits per byte.
> 
> Perhaps only those capable of communicating in pure deduction can only be
> trusted by others capable of communicating in the same fashion.
> 
> Of course the ability to deduce has long been regarded as the prerequisite
> to investigate or understand anything, and is the foundation of all logic
> and reason.
> 
> 
> In the end though, I must repeat someone else's observation, that Google
> could flip a switch, and 7% of all internet traffic will use a new protocol
> they devised. I would prefer, in the following order, MitM-vulnerable
> cryptography, backdoored forward secret ciphers, and then key length
> restrictions. Not... an impossible to design product, with the source code
> given to any government (Kaspersky gives their code to the US, IBM gives
> their source code to Russia)...
> Hmm.
> 
> You can make any software licensed under the GPL if you demand it I suppose
> (yet it doesn't stop bundling anything with proprietary code). So much
> happening right in front of your eyes, I doubt if you object to any of it,
> you can possibly stop it.
> 
> P.S. To expound upon my previous statement that what one says only has to
> be facially true, the argument barely has to justify itself, even using
> weak evidence the audience may very well accept what you say as truth. This
> makes anything you learn about debating to be a cruel waste of time.



More information about the cypherpunks mailing list