The microblog: 2020.04.20 09:57:22

2020.04.20 09:57:22 (1252144312617365504) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Yehuda Lindell (@LindellYehuda)" (1252095441774280704):

Where did the quote attributed to Whit say the field wasn't successfully attracting usage? Here's the quote again: "Lots of people working in cryptography have no deep concern with real application issues. They are trying to discover things clever enough to write papers about."


2020.04.19 01:17:52 (1251651188174422018) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Yehuda Lindell (@LindellYehuda)" (1251644262795657217):

When I describe how the incentive structures in crypto lead to security failures for users, you object, saying the "field of crypto" is a "huge" success. You don't define the success metric but you categorically state that failures don't "take away" from it. Did I get that right?

2020.04.19 06:22:33 (1251727866309591041) from "Yehuda Lindell (@LindellYehuda)":

As I wrote, my objections were primarily to what Diffie wrote (and I admittedly replied to the wrong tweet). However, I can certainly have this argument anyway. The success metric is the use of non trivial cryptographic methods in practice.

2020.04.20 06:38:56 (1252094373220634624) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Yehuda Lindell (@LindellYehuda)" (1251727866309591041):

So each cryptographer claims success on the basis of the field of crypto as a whole having usage? Perhaps, but how would this marketing counteract the strong paper-writing incentive? Proactive security interferes with paper-writing and doesn't seem to add to total crypto usage.

2020.04.20 06:43:10 (1252095441774280704) from "Yehuda Lindell (@LindellYehuda)":

I really don't understand; this feels like an argument for an argument's sake. As I explained, my disagreement is regarding "success of the field". I strongly agree that the paper-writing incentive is extremely problematic, and a lot of hard work doesn't get recognised this way.