2021.12.26 16:34:02 (1475127773497020420) from Daniel J. Bernstein:
It's impressive how clearly we cryptographers can see and communicate that strong cryptography is fast enough for basically everybody when this observation threatens research in other areas, and how blind we can be to the same observation when it threatens cryptographic research. https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/1473083729505570821
2021.12.21 00:08:54 (1473067915884830733) from "Matthew Green (@matthew_d_green)", replying to "Matthew Green (@matthew_d_green)" (1473066810513760262):
I’ve been downvoted on HN for making this point. I beg you, turn your back to that place if you ever want to do good engineering work.
2021.12.21 00:16:27 (1473069816273588229) from "Matthew Green (@matthew_d_green)", replying to "Matthew Green (@matthew_d_green)" (1473067915884830733):
There are, in fact, definitions of “good” that apply to non-cryptographic PRNGs. But non-invertability isn’t one of them. That’s a security property.
2021.12.21 00:45:15 (1473077063678582787) from "Matthew Green (@matthew_d_green)", replying to "Matthew Green (@matthew_d_green)" (1473069816273588229):
I want to live in a world where “random number generator” and “pseudorandom number generator” refer to secure things. And there is this other class of things like “statistical sequence generator” that others can play with and make fast.
2021.12.21 01:11:44 (1473083729505570821) from "Matthew Green (@matthew_d_green)", replying to "Matthew Green (@matthew_d_green)" (1473077063678582787):
Ok I wrote down all my thoughts and will shut up now.
