Danilo Gligoroski wrote:
Now, 64-bit blocks are much bigger than 4-bit blocks, (and the secret key
is still 256 bits i.e. much larger than the block size), but the
principles
of the codebook attack are the same.
Marsh Ray wrote:
Hmmm...there's more than proportional exponents going on here.
James A. Donald jam...@echeque.com writes:
On 2011-06-15 1:29 AM, Ian G wrote:
Which, to my mind was the same sin as the alternate: obsession with
privacy, including to the extent of eliminating the core requirements of
money. The first law of money is that it has to be safe:
Efficiency is relative. Vs a central bank and Brands credentials its
inefficient - a handful of modexps vs say one hundred or a thousand. Vs
bitcoin with longest hash chain wins, and minimum hash being 10 minutes work
for the entire network, I think straight DLREP on all the coins in a time
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 3:22 AM, Adam Back a...@cypherspace.org wrote:
Well said StealthMonger, I suspect Nico is in the minority on this list with
that type of view.
I read Nico's later reply also. Short of banning crypto privacy and
security rights stand a better chance of being balanced
Need something to be encrypted? Just upload it to us and we'll
encrypt it for you. Don't worry, we delete everything. Promise.
https://encryptur.com/
In fairness, this is no worse that downloading some random program off
the internet and using it for the same purpose. At least here the
worst
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Nico Williams n...@cryptonector.com writes:
crypto has a place ... to protect us ... from foreign powers, and
from casual inspection by one's state
Some folks do not choose to have a state. For them, all states are
foreign powers.
You must
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 2:36 PM, StealthMonger
stealthmon...@nym.mixmin.net wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Nico Williams n...@cryptonector.com writes:
crypto has a place ... to protect us ... from foreign powers, and
from casual inspection by one's state
Some
On 06/15/2011 01:43 PM, markus reichelt wrote:
* Marsh Rayma...@extendedsubset.com wrote:
Note that this site is sourcing Google analytics.
... so?
A site can be no more secure than the places from which it sources
script (or just about any resource other than images). In all
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 10:14 PM, Steven Bellovin s...@cs.columbia.edu wrote:
http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2011/06/mining-for-bitcoins.html
and it's worth noting that the author of that post, Brian Frye, is a law
professor:
Where's the line between unregistered securities and, for example,
gift cards, Linden Dollars, Zynga money, Microsoft Points or other
virtual currencies out there?
I don't live in USA, but interested anyway.
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 05:34, Jeffrey Walton noloa...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15,
Bitcoins aren't securities, because they don't act like securities.
There's no promise to pay, no nominal value, and you don't have a
claim on some part of something else.
Earlier I said that bitcoins are digital tulip bulbs, but now that I
think about it, they're really digital pet rocks. They
11 matches
Mail list logo
