139000+ entries in 0.028s
mircea_popescu: there seems to me there's a field to graze upon here ; without any such sillyness as "basis is cipher"
mircea_popescu: i dunno the whole thing. the observation however stands that just as there's a way to verify a number ISNT irrational, by the same way in the same manner for the same reason the reverse can also be verified. and there are indeed very hard (as it is the case here, harder than np-complete) problems to do with such numbers, arbitrarily chosen.
mircea_popescu: admittedly my thinking being that it's time to stop trying to be clever and "cheat", seeing how the only cheated to date is self.
mircea_popescu: it doesn't seem there;s going to be so much cheating here.
mircea_popescu: we do have in point of fact guaranteed irrational numbers.
mircea_popescu: yes, but as long as the notation is in an irrational base,
mircea_popescu: we went through a bunch of examples in one sitting, but i'm not finding it nao
mircea_popescu: nono, we were discussing hard problems and i pointed out the russian guy with the addition
mircea_popescu: you recall earlier discussion re summation of irrationals lemme dig it up
mircea_popescu: well, it does as much as guarantee if your string is finite you're operating on an irrational.
mircea_popescu: but now take something like... an irrational numeration base. take for instance something like (1+sqrt(5))/2, which is... practically binary!
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform so here's what i'm thinking : obviously the equivocation between "NP hard" in the sense of "it is not proven this set is empty of NP hard edges" and NP hard in the sense of "this set CONSISTS of NP-hard elements" is bad for crypto.
mircea_popescu: fine, state it like this : when someone proposes a hash, see if you can find a y for which the reverse is trivial.
mircea_popescu: yes, but if one proposes a f, doing the inverse just to see what happens is a good approach.
mircea_popescu: For any function f, the existence of a (randomized) non-adaptive reduction of NP to the task of average-case inverting f implies that coNP ⊆ AM.
mircea_popescu: If given y one can efficiently compute |f^-1(y)| then the existence of a (randomized) reduction of NP to the task of inverting f implies that coNP ⊆ AM. Thus, it follows that such reductions cannot exist unless coNP ⊆ AM.
mircea_popescu: We consider the possibility of basing one-way functions on NP-Hardness; that is, we study possible reductions from a worst-case decision problem to the task of average-case inverting a polynomial-time computable function f. Our main findings are the following two negative results:
mircea_popescu: "She does stink and she should quit. But I don't want it to be because of me. It should be the traditional route; years of rejections and failures till she's spit out the bottom of the porn industry."
☟︎ mircea_popescu: they're still dead, irrespective how inconvenient that may turn out to be!
mircea_popescu: marx needs a name like my turds need individual id papers.
mircea_popescu: Framedragger : he says : "1. Assume no X exists for F-ing any A's with b ; 2. Assume no X exists for F-ing all A's with b ; 1 is safer than 2." and he is wrong.
mircea_popescu: point reimains, quite far from "flat keyspace" in this particular sense.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform distinct prime pairs that make a 4kb key
mircea_popescu: are there more than possible combinations of 6 character passwords ?
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform the even more hilarious bit is that there just aren't THAT MANY primes to make different keys of a specified size.
mircea_popescu: Framedragger it should have read " This is very different (less safe) from assuming that no polynomial-time algorithm exists for any factoring of any products of two random n-bit primes."
mircea_popescu: but yes, what he's trying to copy was originally correct : the problem with cryptosystems is that even if they "reference" an actual hard problem, they don't get to stand in for the fucking problem itself! they pick a case, and we've no good hardness measurers for mere cases.
mircea_popescu: a) not concrete b) what "some good" c) he mixed up all/never.
mircea_popescu: "Note the "random instances" part. For a concrete example, we might assume that no polynomial-time algorithm exists for factoring the product of two random n-bit primes with some good probability. This is very different (less safe) from assuming that no polynomial-time algorithm exists for always factoring all products of two random n-bit primes."
mircea_popescu: Framedragger chiefly, that it isn't. i posit that nothing good or useful can come of some kid at rutger's self importantly answering questions on a website because some 17 yo kid who thinks himself too cool for his ohio highschool asked a dumb question with the usual smattering of wikipedia his teachers usually A him for.
mircea_popescu: so some officious schmuck wants me to read "the section on wikipedia" where a set of snakeoil salesmen discuss their imaginary snake oil properties ? the glbgbblglbvrhl!
mircea_popescu: than fought, yelps" is yet again obvious, and for the hundredeth or so time will pass unheeded, i guess.
mircea_popescu: and so the matter settled : what started on may 25th as a slight disparity between the usg faux bitcoin exchanges trading at 448 (bitfinex isn't inclued here, having nothing to do with bitcoin altogether) while btcchina was reporting 455 (and 2/3 of the total volume), eventually peaked out at 510/580 (with btcchina still doing 2/3 of the volume) and eventually settled at 530/540. the moral that "you should have yielded rather
mircea_popescu: so electricity is like, <4 cent / kwh commercial in alberta ? who the hell knew, that's pretty good mining pricing neh ?
☟︎ mircea_popescu: moreover, you heat on a .5 kwh/sq foot basis ?! this article is too mysterious for me.
mircea_popescu can already picture the kid in question, 19 yo pakistani with a few online freelancing projects under his belt "spreading out" etc.
mircea_popescu: o it's pretty thick, "terrorists must not be permitted to provide".
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform except the life insurance payout is not the guy's.
mircea_popescu: so what's the logic, "this guy pissed us off, his FAMILY therefore must not get reimbursed for losing teh means of support etc" ?
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform oh that's how you meant. i just reload a current page, yeah.
mircea_popescu: anyway, how's reload not work ? i been using it unknowingly ;/
mircea_popescu: the same sort of thinking informs it everywhere, and it's that sight most loathed in nature, the mental squid of an engineer!
mircea_popescu: i have nfi what the fuck they do to them in school anymore.
mircea_popescu: that there's your market, entirely. one cuts, antoher picks. it only works in that context.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform would you believe that i quit, never to return, an assembly of esteemable finance heads when in congress they didn't agree, nor couldn't understand, why exactly "to split any item to two parties : one cuts, the other picks" is not only equitable, but the only equitable method so much so any other method is derived from it, and equitable only in as much as it's similar.
mircea_popescu: a market is a poor substitute of either foreign policy or governmental theology.