141–150 of 162 posts
I can't believe I read that entire train wreck front to back. If IOTA published this to "expose" MIT, it does quite the opposite. Rule number one, all together now, don't roll your own crypto.
It actually worked. People who are clueless about cryptography (i.e. like 99% of crypto investors) are totally on IOTA side here. Invancheglo is a grade A troll.
I read the whole thing and was awaiting Ethan to send "just watch" to the thread and transferring all IOTA to his wallet (or whatever is relevant for IOTA)
Can someone explain which side leaked this? The blog seems IOTA related but not affiliated.
I'm a person with no background in cryptography. I am in the tech industry however, so I can follow about 30% of the technical jargon that's going on. I read the entire thing. smh. The whole thing started with someone finding something wrong with the 'Curl' wrapper around a packet that's being sent from A->B. Apparently, this violates a EU-CMA security protocol, and this is an issue. Lots of holes in my knowledge the…
The way I view it there's a serious asymmetry here in that the IOTA team is denigrating seasoned professionals in the field of cryptography (e.g. Matthew Green) on social media without offering a serious rebuttal of their concerns. From my PoV there seems to be little-to-no miscommunication in bad faith on the part of the MIT researchers in these emails, but a lot of dismissiveness from the IOTA developers towards th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My point is it’s funny. It’s a group of charlatans dealing with a competent person for the first time.
He's not an MIT researcher AFAIK. He's affiliated with DCI, which runs under the MIT banner. MIT actually had a favorable article in their review that DCI took issue with--but of course they were both going after a Swedish contract to create an e-money. IOTA survived the cut, which probably infuriates them even more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The way I view it there's a serious asymmetry here in that the IOTA team is denigrating seasoned professionals in the field of cryptography (e.g. Matthew Green) on social media without offering a serious rebuttal of their concerns. From my PoV there seems to be little-to-no miscommunication in bad faith on the part of the MIT researchers in these emails, but a lot of dismissiveness from the IOTA developers towards th…
Green is the only guy who could take something as novel as zsnarks and latch it onto a trusted setup (you need it, but it should have been 50 Peter Todds) and optional privacy. He trolled Monero with this same kind of vehemence when he should be turning his critical eye on zcash--so let's not pretend he's an infallible god when he can't even get his own project right. Also, if you read the side convo between CFB and…
a) there's nothing broken in the Zcash cryptography. Some cryptographic assumptions used by SNARKs are a bit hairy and novel, but these assumptions, and variants there-of, haven't been broken in over 25 years of trying.
b) State-of-the-art efficient SNARKs require trusted setup, but this can be distributed, as was done with Zcash and will be done, in a better way, in the next Zcash upgrade.
c) CFB called Aumasson's methods 'primitive'. Hardly polite, especially considering Aumasson is co-creator of solid hash functions like Blake2.
Ethan (MIT): > I am shocked that you would call a hash function deployed in production, with "a 800 million dollar bug bounty" as Dominik put it, a prototype.
Sergey (IOTA): I see Greek wasn’t your favorite subject in school :), don’t worry, word “prototype” is similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype_pattern, not to what you thought about. It is also important to keep in mind that all distributed ledgers are currently in a “prototype phase“.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, it's complete bullocks. Rest assured, if anything was better than binary for _logic_ then it would already have taken over the world. Binary have a lot of wonderful properties (not least noise immunity) and deserves a lot of credit for the success of modern technology. Note, the ENIAC wasn't binary! It was based on decimal. However there are places where we look beyond binary; most notably in storage where data…
It is not "complete bollocks",it just not as efficient as it appears to be. The reason for the (supposedly) higher efficiency of ternary logic is so called Radix Economy (wikipedia has an article). Properly implemented ternary (with a split power supply - positive, negative and ground) would have the same noise immunity as binary.
That's a contradictory statement. If it was as efficient as claimed it wouldn't be bollocks. But it isn't, thus, bollocks.
"(with a split power supply - positive, negative and ground) would have the same noise immunity as binary."
[citation needed]
I'm not a EE, but my understanding from EE friends is that isn't true.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He's not an MIT researcher AFAIK. He's affiliated with DCI, which runs under the MIT banner. MIT actually had a favorable article in their review that DCI took issue with--but of course they were both going after a Swedish contract to create an e-money. IOTA survived the cut, which probably infuriates them even more.
One can find good cryptographers outside MIT, you know.