BingoBoingo: asciilifeform: It's a quote from a piece of children's literature. Sub "President" for "Man ritualistically staying alone"
BingoBoingo working on a piece covering republican research and doctrine on censorship resistance as of 2018 to throw on the blognotebook, to inform Pizarro marketing.
BingoBoingo: asciilifeform: It's not for heathens. It's for me and whoever else reads to repackage for heathens.
BingoBoingo: Like other Republic pursuits we have experience, practice, and doctrine in the logs but like other things (v state of the art) it could benefit from collection
mircea_popescu: anyway, the likely reason they don't publish scratchwork is that before republic, nobody had any fucking idea how to do intellectual work. q is a lot like asking "why would doctors not wash hands". because before someone told them to, they didn't, that's why.
☟︎ mircea_popescu: BingoBoingo that's a good idea incidentally. lotta stuff we invented last tuesday and in the brief interval became seemingly "older than dirt" / "in kindergarten!!!" is in fact entirely unheard of outside the walls.
BingoBoingo: It is an issue I am concretely running into
BingoBoingo: We've documented our victories well, but when explaining to heathens why, collections of log links where the path to victory happens and is discussed often don't quite do it on their own
BingoBoingo: !!rate nicooleci 2 Mircea's chattle, summarizer in training, Outside the Wire
deedbot: nicooleci is not registered in WoT.
BingoBoingo: !!rate nicoleci 2 Mircea's chattle, summarizer in training, Outside the Wire
BingoBoingo: !!v FE4479BA4353DE8C614A7112895F7D418CD6C2111FA664BB81648676A6C5B540
deedbot: BingoBoingo rated nicoleci 2 << Mircea's chattle, summarizer in training, Outside the Wire
a111: Logged on 2018-10-29 00:44 mircea_popescu: anyway, the likely reason they don't publish scratchwork is that before republic, nobody had any fucking idea how to do intellectual work. q is a lot like asking "why would doctors not wash hands". because before someone told them to, they didn't, that's why.
mircea_popescu: hey, people cca 1400 made big deal of "purity" as well.
mircea_popescu: using the words is worth nothing ; if not used by a lord they're powerless.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform this isn't much of an argument, let alone "proof". + and * also conserve entropy, yet y=x/2 - x/2 +4 does not.
Mocky: or a more direct counter argument: A xor A = 0
☟︎ a111: Logged on 2018-10-29 03:26 asciilifeform: nao, exercise for the reader : find the bandwidth of this channel ( how many bits , if more than one, can be stuffed into a block and still preserve this property ) ...
mircea_popescu: consider the sets P {1,2,3,4} and E {1,2,3,4,5}. now, the function taking all numbers <4 to themselvews and 4 to either 4 or 5 with 50-50 probability IS in fact reversible
mircea_popescu: i can reverse it, cuz P4 or P5 are E4 so i need to now nothing.
mircea_popescu: consider the sets P {1,2,3,4} and E {1,2,3,4,5}. now, the function taking all numbers <4 to themselvews and 4 to either 4 or 5 with 50-50 probability IS in fact reversible (because E5 and E4 are directly P4). is however not in fact entropy conserving.
mircea_popescu: it is entropy* conserving, where entropy* is a special "entropy-colored-for-meaning", but this isn't useful.
☟︎ mircea_popescu: the problem with one's preoblems is that they rarely have the decency.
mircea_popescu: the function which takes all numbers <4 to themselves and all numbers >4 to 4.
asciilifeform: W(6) = RLeft11(xor(g,RLeft11(xor(b,e,g,RLeft11(xor(a,d,f,h)))),RLeft11(xor(d,g,RLeft11(xor(a,d,f,h)),RLeft11(xor(c,f,h,RLeft11(xor(b,e,g,RLeft11(xor(a,d,f,h)))))))),RLeft11(xor(f,RLeft11(xor(a,d,f,h)),RLeft11(xor(c,f,h,RLeft11(xor(b,e,g,RLeft11(xor(a,d,f,h)))))),RLeft11(xor(e,h,RLeft11(xor(b,e,g,RLeft11(xor(a,d,f,h)))),RLeft11(xor(d,g,RLeft11(xor(a,d,f,h)),RLeft11(xor(c,f,h,RLeft11(xor(b,e,g,RLeft11(xor(a,d,f,h))))))))))))))
asciilifeform: W(7) = RLeft11(xor(h,RLeft11(xor(c,f,h,RLeft11(xor(b,e,g,RLeft11(xor(a,d,f,h)))))),RLeft11(xor(e,h,RLeft11(xor(b,e,g,RLeft11(xor(a,d,f,h)))),RLeft11(xor(d,g,RLeft11(xor(a,d,f,h)),RLeft11(xor(c,f,h,RLeft11(xor(b,e,g,RLeft11(xor(a,d,f,h)))))))))),RLeft11(xor(g,RLeft11(xor(b,e,g,RLeft11(xor(a,d,f,h)))),RLeft11(xor(d,g,RLeft11(xor(a,d,f,h)),RLeft11(xor(c,f,h,RLeft11(xor(b,e,g,RLeft11(xor(a,d,f,h)))))))),RLeft11(xor(f,RLeft11(xor(a,d,f,h)
asciilifeform: but after this, it chews the cud, e.g. W(8) = RLeft11(xor(RLeft11(xor(a,d,f,h)),RLeft11(xor(d,g,RLeft11(xor(a,d,f,h)),RLeft11(xor(c,f,h,RLeft11(xor(b,e,g,RLeft11(xor(a,d,f,h)))))))),RLeft11(xor(f,RLeft11(xor(a,d,f,h)),RLeft11(xor(c,f,h,RLeft11(xor(b,e,g,RLeft11(xor(a,d,f,h)))))),RLeft11(xor(e,h,RLeft11(xor(b,e,g,RLeft11(xor(a,d,f,h)))),RLeft11(xor(d,g,RLeft11(xor(a,d,f,h)),RLeft11(xor(c,f,h,RLeft11(xor(b,e,g,RLeft11(xor(a,d,f,h))))))
asciilifeform: )))))),RLeft11(xor(h,RLeft11(xor(c,f,h,RLeft11(xor(b,e,g,RLeft11(xor(a,d,f,h)))))),RLeft11(xor(e,h,RLeft11(xor(b,e,g,RLeft11(xor(a,d,f,h)))),RLeft11(xor(d,g,RLeft11(xor(a,d,f,h)),RLeft11(xor(c,f,h,RLeft11(xor(b,e,g,RLeft11(xor(a,d,f,h)))))))))),RLeft11(xor(g,RLeft11(xor(b,e,g,RLeft11(xor(a,d,f,h)))),RLeft11(xor(d,g,RLeft11(xor(a,d,f,h)),RLeft11(xor(c,f,h,RLeft11(xor(b,e,g,RLeft11(xor(a,d,f,h)))))))),RLeft11(xor(f,RLeft11(xor(a,d,f,h)
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform the objection you had, you know, "this is trivially true but is not what we want" goes very much to the core of the issue -- cryptographic notions of strength are very hard to meaningfully describe mathematically because htey're always "obviously this has ONE trivial solution, but does it have more than the one ?!" math deals in 0 and 1s, it's ill equipped to deal with this batshit nonsense.
mircea_popescu: right. anyway, back to the practicals -- are sbox outputs ~equiprobable~ ?
a111: Logged on 2018-10-29 15:53 mircea_popescu: it is entropy* conserving, where entropy* is a special "entropy-colored-for-meaning", but this isn't useful.
a111: Logged on 2018-10-29 16:06 asciilifeform: nao, is it a controversial statement that xors with an item that's already been rolled in, can only ~subtract~ entropy, never add ?
mircea_popescu: the reason being that it wasn't gonna move till i baked it in some pie.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform consider also that if a, b, c, d, e, f are rng words, then (P xor a) xor b) etc does not in fact substract anything.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform likely explanation being "whisperer", ie, technical quimby sinking it behind the doors because "it's fucking stupid".
a111: Logged on 2018-10-26 16:48 mircea_popescu: i am experimenting with serpent, and yes it's borne of that ancient discussion of ours, but i'm nowhere near-ready to bake it into "this is tmsr secure disk"
a111: Logged on 2018-10-26 17:04 mircea_popescu: in short, because this winding discussion risks overwhelming buffers, the salient points are a) that i'm not ready to go to war over serpent, it's a meh-maybe item ; b) that building our spearheads around items we're not willing to die for may be how the converse of
http://btcbase.org/log-search?q=bitcoin+corrupts altogether.
BingoBoingo: asciilifeform: If your math stands the week, you may be the best qualified to do the qntra on it
a111: Logged on 2018-10-26 17:05 mircea_popescu: yeah but suppose some bright kid walks into here one day with that item we all suspect is under a rock somewhere
mircea_popescu: bright kid walks in with a convincing story as to how he's gonna walk in with item != bright kid walks into here one day with that item.
diana_coman: asciilifeform, yes re original - I could not source it and no idea why
diana_coman: I can cite though from the 2000 paper (or apparently 2000...): "Since then we have sought to strengthen the algorithm and improve its performance. As a result, we have selected new, stornger, S-boxes and changed the key schedule slightly."
mircea_popescu: i'd have said more, but the editor showed wordcount 777, and i deem this a very good omen re cipher quality.
mircea_popescu: ow shit, i mystypoed in the title, wtf is a "chipher".
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform like it or not, this is the ur-blockchipher. ALL OTHERS, not only casually but NECESSARILY, are mini-clipped versions of this. "competition or no competition", if it got shitboxes it's this and naught else.
mircea_popescu: and no, "we have pre-padded ring buffers with THIS particular message that's worth hardwiring because it's ever so magical" ain't a reasoning.
diana_coman: asciilifeform, that helps, thank you! I had to take break and I'm slow on this sort of things so it'll take a while until I get to say anything
☟︎ mircea_popescu: "our block cipher has to have backdoor because we built a paper shredder and well..."
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform this is so much better than having to correct the title.
a111: Logged on 2018-10-29 19:22 diana_coman: asciilifeform, that helps, thank you! I had to take break and I'm slow on this sort of things so it'll take a while until I get to say anything
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform check this out : as per the "chipher", let there be a plaintext P of n bits ; and a key K of k bits. given a ciphertext E of n bits, it is a fact that any one bit of P is the result of xoring of up to k bits of P. if you know K you know ~which ones~, and as you have E you know ~what they must xor to~. this results in a message-wide system of k equations which is determinate.
mircea_popescu: (provided of course k>=n, which yes, it's a block cipher)
mircea_popescu: so this is, in fact, a system of (here) 512 xor-equations, with ak nown result (e[x]) and a known parameter matrix (K)
mircea_popescu: as long as P doesn't have more bits than K, this is a determinate system.
a111: Logged on 2018-10-29 18:29 asciilifeform: it's about xor, in the specific style used in winblowz shitware to hide strings from av.
mircea_popescu: Consider K = 01010 ; P = 00111 ; RB = (00111), (01110), (11100), (11001), (10011).
mircea_popescu: E therefore is : E1 = 0 x 0 x 1 = 0 ; E2 = 0 x 0 x 1 = 0 ; E3 = 1 x 1 x 0 = 0 ; E4 = 1 x 1 x 0 = 1 ; E5 = 1 x 1 x 1 = 0 thus E = 00010.
mircea_popescu: To now obtain P back from E and K : P[1] = P[1] x P[2] x P[4] ; P[2] = P[2] x P[3] x P[5] ; P[3] = P[3] x P[4] x P[1] ; P[4] = P[4] x P[5] x P[2] ; P[5] = P[5] x P[0] x P[3].
mircea_popescu: To obtain P back from E without K : P[1] = P[1] x K[1] * P[1] x K[2] * P[2] x K[3] * P[3] x K[4] * P[4] x K[5] * P[5] ; P[2] = P[2] x K[1] * P[2] x K[2] * P[3] x K[3] * P[4] x K[4] * P[5] x K[5] * P[6] ; and so following all the way down.
mircea_popescu: so : with K it's a system of 5 equations with 5 unknowns ; without K it's a system of 5 equations with 10 unknowns.
mircea_popescu: for a 5 bit key you only have to try 2^3 permutations or so, it's true. but anyways.
mircea_popescu: E[1] = P[1] x P[2] x P[4] ; P[2] = P[2] x P[3] x P[5] is what i meant.
mircea_popescu: no no, x is xor * is multiplication (in the sense that if the key is 0 at that offset, the rb dun get applied)
mircea_popescu: so if K[q] = 0, then that line's skipped ; otherwise it's applied.
mircea_popescu: to be clear : it's exactly the same scheme ; showing you how P ~must~ be obtainable from known K and E.
BingoBoingo: In other updates: Cansorship resistance piece approaching 1500 words and has yet to advance beyond 2014 Republican state of the art.
a111: Logged on 2018-10-29 19:39 asciilifeform: pretty handy proof , however, that the xor liquishit on the right hand side of those serpent eqs, doesn't conserve entropy !
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform you agree that if i give you 5 equations with 5 unknowns, this is in fact resolvable ?
a111: Logged on 2018-10-29 06:45 Mocky: or a more direct counter argument: A xor A = 0
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform K = 0101, P = 1110. RB = (1110), (1101), (1011), (0111). E1 = 1 x 1 x 0 = 1 ; E2 = 1 x 1 x 1 = 0 ; E3 = 1 x 0 x 1 = 0 ; E4 = 0 x 1 x 1 = 0 ; E = 1000.
mircea_popescu: unless you're willing do debug the .py, it's spitting out wrong values.
mircea_popescu: lmao ima have to redo this. apparently im terrible at handmaffs
mircea_popescu: K = 0101, P = 1110. RB = (1110), (1101), (1011), (0111). E1 = 1 x 1 x 0 = 0 ; E2 = 1 x 1 x 1 = 1 ; E3 = 1 x 0 x 1 = 0 ; E4 = 0 x 1 x 1 = 1 ; E = 0101 ?
mircea_popescu: K = 0101, P = 1110. RB = (1110), (1101), (1011), (0111). E1 = 1 x 1 x 0 = 0 ; E2 = 1 x 1 x 1 = 1 ; E3 = 1 x 0 x 1 = 0 ; E4 = 0 x 1 x 1 = 0 ; E = 0100.
☟︎ mircea_popescu: by now, covered all the possible combinations of 4 bits (ain't that many) -- but never fell on the mp.py 1010.
mircea_popescu: i don't actually follow your proggy any ; regardless, the values it spits dun seem to agree with what i expect.
mircea_popescu: if we manage to fixate on a specific datapoint we'd prolly benefit here.
mircea_popescu: on the other hand, entirely unclear to me why the fuck we're discussing some [evidently buggy/misimplemented] program or my own inept handcalculus. either we agree a system of n equations with n unknowns is determinate or we don't and that's the end of the matter.
a111: Logged on 2018-10-29 16:52 asciilifeform: a proggy that takes a 256b key and shits out its 4+ sister-keys, prolly wouldnt hurt, either; if somebody can be arsed to write.
a111: Logged on 2018-10-29 16:18 asciilifeform: so! for instance ! if a, d, f, h are such that xor(a,d,f,h) = 0, then term a no longer appears in the equation at all !
a111: Logged on 2018-10-29 16:19 asciilifeform: so all possible inputs where this holds , result in the same inflated-key.
diana_coman: ale for the choice of underlying primitive polynomial but I'm still fuzzy on what goes on in there exactly
BingoBoingo: ^ asciilifeform mod6 mircea_popescu Please correct me if I have misunderstood anything
BingoBoingo: If the censorship resistance piece survives peer review, Imma test it on some orcs and start using it as my explainer to heathens for why the fuck I am in this hell hole
BingoBoingo: !Q later tell nicoleci please use irc instead of linked in messaging