Re: Re-secured Algorithm?

From: Regis (nobody_at_thisaddress.com)
Date: 08/30/05 

Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 01:24:47 -0400

On 29 Aug 2005 18:44:48 -0700, tomstdenis@gmail.com wrote:

>What's my motivation? To impress you?

Impress me?
Who gives a shit WHO you try to impress?
After all the crap I've seen from you, at this point the only thing
you could do to even remotely impress me would be to literally flap
your arms and become airborne. Anything short of that, and I wouldn't
even blink.
This isn't about impressing anyone. This is about backing up YOUR
claims.

> I'd rather impress a cute girl at the mall. Lot more to gain from that ;-)

I suppose you're right. When you've yet to touch a woman's breasts, I
can understand why the prospect would make you all giddy.

>> What part of PROVE YOUR CLAIMS do you not understand?

>Why isn't citing previous results proof?

Because YOU made a claim that generating collisions was "trivial".
I'm well aware of what OTHERS have said and what others have done.
But this wasn't about what OTHERS have said or done.
It was YOU that made the claim, therefore YOU should back it up citing
your OWN work and your OWN findings.

>I never originated that claim.

You didn't originate it, but you certainly repeated it without
attributing it to anybody else. Therefore, logic and common sense
tells us that you must've been speaking of your own experiences and/or
findings.

If I tell you... "Swimming with dolphins is fun", you would assume I
was relating my own personal experiences, because at no time did I
follow it up with "...my friend did it last summer and told me all
about it."

>The people who posted a paper on the
>collision showing how you could find collisions in a relatively trivial
>amount of time are saying that.

No, even THEY never said anything so absurd, because I'm sure they
wanted to retain what little credibility they had at the time.
Case in point: after publishing their paper, how many MORE "trivial"
collisions have been found and published? You'd think -- given the
amount of time that has elapsed -- that we'd have a virtual
encyclopedia of collisions by now, considering how "trivial" they are
to generate. Where are they? How come we don't have a central
database of collisions to demonstrate the "broken" nature of SHA-1, as
is so widely claimed amongst the "experts" here? If these collisions
are so "trivial" to generate, why is it that even after all this time,
the most we have to show for our efforts is a small handful of them?

Could it be...that...maybe it really isn't all that "trivial" to
generate these collisions? Oh my god...what a shock that would be.

>> Put up or shut up, once and for all.

>I did. You're just fighting this because you think you're clever.

No, actually whatl I'm doing is revealing your true "expertise" to
those who don't yet know what a pompous idiot you are. You talk the
talk, but that's all it is...just talk. You make idiotic claims (ala
Ashwood) and then refuse to back them up with proof, not because
you're somehow above that, but because you CAN'T. And when called on
it, you try to weasel out of it a thousand different ways.

Relevant Pages

  • RE: copying files
    ... The cause for the issue may be because of a large amount of collisions ... occurring during file transfers. ... In general, the problem is protocol ...
    (microsoft.public.win2000.networking)
  • Re: How to count value in a ArrayList
    ... when a large amount of collisions happen, you can just keep adding more ... There is a reason that the .NET hash table implementations have a way to declare and inspect its "Capacity". ... And as Arne says, if you don't believe us, just look at the code. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp)