The microblog: 2020.04.20 19:36:01

2020.04.20 19:36:01 (1252289933579976704) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Yehuda Lindell (@LindellYehuda)" (1252170022690213888):

Clarification question: Is "doesn't help" a claim of _zero_ benefit? If not, what exactly _do_ you mean? If so, I can see where your attacks on this claimed "interpretation" come from, but how exactly do you get to this "interpretation" from the quote attributed to Diffie?


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.

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."

2020.04.20 11:39:32 (1252170022690213888) from "Yehuda Lindell (@LindellYehuda)":

It's times like these that I feel that a face-to-face would clear things up. My interpretation of Diffie's quote is that people discovering clever things to write papers about doesn't help to solve real problems people have. I strongly disagree with that.