Re: VMPC isn't free
From: Mok-Kong Shen (mok-kong.shen_at_t-online.de)
Date: 08/27/03
- Next message: Michael Amling: "Re: ECC shared signature scheme?"
- Previous message: Michael Amling: "Re: VMPC function. Question on definition of inverting"
- In reply to: Tom St Denis: "Re: VMPC isn't free"
- Next in thread: Bartosz Zoltak: "Re: VMPC isn't free"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 17:16:53 +0200
Tom St Denis wrote:
>
> Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
> |
> | There are clever and less clever or stupid people, good
> | and bad researchers. Maybe you are lucky to belong to the
> | genius class, but still one has to have certain tolerance
> | towards the less gifted ones. Note also that everyone
> | starts as a beginner who can't yet do things that a profi
> | could do.
>
> Yah, tom the genius. That'll be the day.
>
> How about just Tom the student who can't get no knowledge in a
> discussion group because people flee it?
>
> Sure you can read all the papers you want [and certainly I've read my
> share] but there are always details left out [e.g. assumes prior
> knowledge]. This is where being able to chat it up with the pros would
> come in handy.
>
> For example, in the case of CEILIDH I was offering todo an independent
> implementation so I can time it against algorithms like XTR/DH/RSA, etc...
>
> I'm sure the questions I asked via private email are questions other
> newbies may want to know the answer to.
As said, you as an individual barely have a chance of
'improving' the group in any 'essential' way. (Analogy:
There may be many things in your town that you dislike
and want to get better. Think what you could effectively
do. You may join a party of those who have similar
thoughts as you. But it is a general fact that changes
could only be brought about very slowly and only with
perseverance -- excepting of course through making a
revolution.) You have to accept the 'reality', I suppose,
and try to make out the best you could. If you post
a question of sufficient interest with clarity, I believe
that at the current situation of the group, even though
it's far from ideal, you have a certain real chance of
getting good advices from a few experts. Yes, that
would have been better, if the atmosphere of the group
were better. However, as said, there you couldn't
change much in my conviction.
> | I am not sure that you could correctly decide whether
> | others are taking the science seriously in many cases.
>
> Signs of taking it seriously
>
> 1. No handwaving conjectures.
>
> 2. No "best ever" or "patent-pending" buzzwords
>
> 3. Actually state what problem the project solves. This could [for
> instance] be something as simple as "efficient cipher design for an
> 8-bit MCU].
>
> 4. Write up the project formally as a paper [even if not submitting it
> to a conference]. This means you organize your thoughts in a consistent
> and logical manner. This also means you include real analysis [not just
> random meaningless tests]. Normally also you set forth to theorize
> something and prove it.
>
> 5. Not insult those that are not convinced or interested.
>
> You won't see this from dscott, mrsjunecarey, dabiker, bartoszalky,
> etc... for the sole fact they are not interested in academia. They
> don't read previous papers/books so they rarely if ever know what they
> are talking about. Since they don't read past academia they don't care
> about future academia [which is abundantly evident in their behaviour].
>
> And don't get me wrong, not all ideas and projects have to be
> earth-shattering nobel winning work. For instance, when I was [er
> starting, I still am!] learning cryptography I often wrote up what I was
> learning in the form of a paper. It helped me practice writing as well
> as really understand the topics.
I am not sure that it is desirable that very stringent
requirements/rules should be placed on posters of this
group. After all, this group isn't a (refereed) scientific
journal or a serious podium discussion of a conference.
(On the other hand, I think it's too much that someone
once designated our group to be just a chat room.) It's
fine, though, that one puts such stringent requirements on
'oneself', since that tends (on the assumption that there
are others who do the same) to improve a tiny little bit
the group with time. (There is albeit a practical problem
with this, for it could happen that one lacks a 'mirror'
in such matters, so that one might violates these
requirements oneself without being conscious of that,
in particular with respect to your requirement point 5.)
>
> | (Yes, there are on the other hand politicians who
> | think to be able to always correctly decide who have the
> | right or wrong 'thought'.) First class researchers don't
> | spend much of their time in our group in my view. That's
> | bad, but I don't think you, as individual, could ever
> | change that.
>
> Why not? If I could make a case that these nut-cases should be ignored
> then maybe the S/N ratio will improve which will entice the pros to come
> back.
It is not whether you could 'make a case' or not. Make
a case to improve certain things in your town and see
how large is the probability that something happens
according to your ideas! You ignore the reality and
think like a philosopher sitting alone in his study in
my view. Cf. what I write above and previously.
>
> The pros don't post because sharing knowledge for free is beneath them.
> ~ They don't because they can do without the flame wars and such. They
> share knowledge via books, conferences and private communications.
There certainly wouldn't be flame wars if nobody ever
flames, right? If you see any stuff wrong, either you
put up 'good' arguments against it or just ignore it.
If you do argue and the partner behave in undisciplined
or terrible ways, it's wise to stop (other readers would
see whether you are indeed right or not in such cases)
instead of creating a flame war. (That there are
politicians in the world who 'want' wars is another issue.)
> | On the other hand, I am personally of the
> | opinion that this group should provide the opportunity
> | to amateurs and beginners to express their (eventually
> | very wrong) ideas so that they could have a certain chance
> | to mature to become profis oneday. If you are a profi and
> | have the goodwill to help others, you should have a certain
> | amount of patience and tolerance to the amateurs and
> | beginners in my opinion. (Note, though, that you are never
> | 'required' to help others or even to follow-up at all.)
>
> Newbies shouldn't be sharing complete ideas as often as they do. They
> should be asking questions and sharing problems.
>
> Specially ciphers. All these scottu19 and L1/2/3/4/5/... and
> javascript-h4x0rz are a prime example of what not to send. And it isn't
> as if I didn't do that too when I started. Just when I was "told" by
> Wagner [politely I might add] I took the hint and did some reading.
That maybe your personal view point. I don't think
everyone agrees with you. This group should be tolerant
to all kinds of writings, as long as they are relevant
to crypto and do not contain insults etc. etc. in my
humble view. Again: this group is not a scientific journal,
it is just a forum for freely exchaning ideas without any
formal constraints (much like over a cup of coffee
with your collegues).
> Admitedly I designed quite a few ciphers but I never claimed they were
> secure and often my designs were never very similar [e.g. feistels with
> very different round functions, spn ciphers of varying forms]. So
> perhaps I should have curbed some of my ideas but I didn't share many of
> the faults of the trolls I'm trying to make an example of
>
> 1. I always maintained my ciphers were not to be used/trusted. Though
> a few of them I argued were strong
>
> 2. I always tried new ideas/configurations. I never kept at the same
> design over and over.
>
> 3. I graciously accepted attacks [on the design] from people specially
> Fluhrer and Fisher.
>
> This VMPC guy is all about "use my design, replace AES with it, it's
> uber strong" etc... Which in my opinion is not only arrogant it's
> frustrating because you know some tool with his hand on an executive
> decision button will say "VMPC is the shiz-nitz!" and boom we're thrown
> back to the stone age.
See above. It's good if you could strictly follow some
ideals. Nonethess, the reality requires that you be
tolerant to others to some (considerable) extent.
> | For the general people, I like to re-iterate my hint of
> | the possibility of employing kill-file and (in case a
> | suitable browser is not available for that) of refraining
> | from clicking on posts of certain selected persons.
>
> Ideally what we need is more moderator activity in sci.crypt.research.
>
> I know Jason Holt is setting up a private mailing list [similar to
> wassabi but only for academics not just cryptoers in general]. That may
> prove interesting.
If you desire a moderated environment, then that exists
alread and is what you yourself have indicated. Why
do you want to eliminate an (existing) non-moderated one?
Subscribe in future exclusively to sci.crypt.research is
the best way for you, isn't it?
M. K. Shen
- Next message: Michael Amling: "Re: ECC shared signature scheme?"
- Previous message: Michael Amling: "Re: VMPC function. Question on definition of inverting"
- In reply to: Tom St Denis: "Re: VMPC isn't free"
- Next in thread: Bartosz Zoltak: "Re: VMPC isn't free"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
