# Re: The operational FreeMove Quantum Exchange Proof-of-Concept

*From*: daw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (David Wagner)*Date*: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 22:36:30 +0000 (UTC)

Mpilot wrote:

Since the FreeMove Quantum Exchange Proof-of-Concept function which is

discussed here is based on these publised papers and open-source

software library to which I am referring and you are not willing / able

to show errors in these published papers and open-source software

library, we are finished with this discussion.

I think it would be more accurate to say that your scheme is finished.

Based on what I've seen so far, it's going nowhere.

The burden is not on Kristian to slog through your code and point out

the bug; the burden is on you to provide convincing evidence that your

scheme is secure. So far, you have not come close to meeting that burden.

I have to say that I am not getting warm fuzzy feelings about your

scheme, given the way you are talking about it. Are you new to the

field of applied cryptography and communication security?

.

**Follow-Ups**:

**References**:**The operational FreeMove Quantum Exchange Proof-of-Concept***From:*Mpilot

**Re: The operational FreeMove Quantum Exchange Proof-of-Concept***From:*Mpilot

**Re: The operational FreeMove Quantum Exchange Proof-of-Concept***From:*Kristian Gjøsteen

**Re: The operational FreeMove Quantum Exchange Proof-of-Concept***From:*Mpilot

- Prev by Date:
**Re: The operational FreeMove Quantum Exchange Proof-of-Concept** - Next by Date:
**Re: Enigma machine strenght using a computer** - Previous by thread:
**Re: The operational FreeMove Quantum Exchange Proof-of-Concept** - Next by thread:
**Re: The operational FreeMove Quantum Exchange Proof-of-Concept** - Index(es):