Vervious

5 ms·

1.
by Vervious 1y ago
not again!
2.
by Vervious 2y ago
no, the article is talking about symmetric key crypto also. (i.e. one way functions). You're talking about cryptosystems that don't have proofs of security, or reductions to heuristical assumptions
3.
by Vervious 2y ago
1) It'd be really really awesome to show average-case hardness version of a natural problem (i.e. 3SAT on a natural distribution) from the worst-case hardness of that problem (i.e. 3SAT). I believe it's wide open in the context of
4.
by Vervious 2y ago
That's completely unrelated, the reliance there is because you want to be able to prove "any statement in NP" in zero knowledge. It then suffices to give a protocol for just 3-colorings, because "any statement in NP&quot
5.
by Vervious 2y ago
Not sure it's misleading, he did write the word "technically", and anyone who knows what NP-complete is knows that NP-hard does not necessarily mean NP-complete. I am a cryptographer and the article is fine. Also, do you have
6.
by Vervious 2y ago
how do you know if an instance you picked is hard? Another problem with your suggestion: Do we even know that a 1/polynomial sized fraction of 3-coloring instances are hard? (Else you'll never sample one). (NP-Hardness certainly d
7.
by Vervious 2y ago
tit for tat makes the U.S. more like the CCP, and less like the version of the U.S. that stands for freedom and democracy (that I presume you want to live in). if you want to live in an American version of china where instead of bytedance w
8.
by Vervious 2y ago
Raft has a problem where, in the protocol description, sometimes I have no idea why some line is there, but if you take it out the protocol comes to a grinding halt... it's really a mumble jumble. It has good intuition, but the details
9.
by Vervious 3y ago
Makes sense!
10.
by Vervious 3y ago
I don’t see how you can read and understood Nielsen and Chuang in one sitting, unless you are already a quantum computation theorist. I also don’t see how reading what is essentially an algorithms textbook can lead you to develop an informe
11.
by Vervious 3y ago
why not go public? That would also probably be in the public interest.
12.
by Vervious 3y ago
I think the controversy was in making the observation
13.
by Vervious 3y ago
Maybe overall better for society, when a single ivory tower doesn’t have a monopoly on AI!
14.
by Vervious 3y ago
I think you're being a little selective in trying to show your point. Human-driven climate change is the biggest driver of ecological damage. Even the article you link to is based on a report that climate change is the biggest driver o
15.
by Vervious 3y ago
fyi carbon emissions directly causes global warming and ocean acidification, so yes, mitigating carbon emissions IS very important to help your desertification, rainforests, kelp forests, and coral reefs
16.
by Vervious 3y ago
proof of stake blockchains certainly have leaders. MEV doesn't exist if there aren't designated block proposers
17.
by Vervious 3y ago
A blockchain (without all the bells and whistles) is definitionally equivalent to a state-machine or log replication system (but handling byzantine faults). (Each log entry is just a block).
18.
by Vervious 3y ago
Consensus protocol researcher here. For what it’s worth, I think that the plethora of blockchain research in the last 10 years has made consensus much easier to understand. Raft (in particular, with all of its subtleties) reads (and impleme
19.
by Vervious 3y ago
Not really; there are algorithms where many nodes propose proposals in parallel, but eventually only one of those proposals gets finalized (or they maintain only a partial ordering, not a full ordering). (See Bullshark and redbelly iirc) Th
20.
by Vervious 3y ago
That said shamir's secret sharing is one of the easiest constructions to reason about so I think the risk is much smaller there
21.
by Vervious 3y ago
> "It does however have laws around registration of the security" This sounds a lot like the SEC dictating what can and can't be traded in the modern day. We can't trade something if there isn't an exchange for i
22.
by Vervious 3y ago
I mean, everyone hyping up kale as a supergreen on their social media doesn't make Kale --- the vegetable --- a security. Likewise, people shill GOLD on twitter all the time. Is gold a security? If kale and gold are securities under th
23.
by Vervious 3y ago
Well, in a libertarian world, the moral high ground is that we should be able to trade anything -- who is the SEC to tell us what we can't trade? It's almost like freedom of speech. Plus, I don't think consumers should be pro
24.
by Vervious 3y ago
Sure. But it's an ELI5 "in addition to formalism", not "in lieu of formalism". In theory conferences like STOC or FOCS, the first section of the paper often comprises such an overview. Certainly some papers are bett
25.
by Vervious 3y ago
Systems research papers do not represent all research papers out there, not even in computer science. In cryptography, certainly a paper with formal definitions and proofs can be much more valuable than a corresponding blog post. It's
26.
by Vervious 3y ago
I mostly use twitter on web, for discovery and for work - Meta, please release a web app soon! They also need to let us change display names; these usernames don't tell us very much. Also, a following-only feed would be great.
27.
by Vervious 3y ago
I agree that they shouldn't dump it all into chapter 1. But, when learning any cryptographic scheme, in order to understand what is going on, it is certainly necessary to learn the corresponding mathematical tools. Even to define what
28.
by Vervious 3y ago
Oh never mind, I didn't realize that the mechanism was to go private. I thought that all the subreddits listed were already dark.
29.
by Vervious 3y ago
I'm clicking on some of them, and can still view the posts?
30.
by Vervious 3y ago
the op seems very unironic about it though

More ›