2022.08.18 03:33:46 (1560077464281309184) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Probabilita (@kora@chaos.social) (@dakoraa)" (1556352476600827905):
Sure, some public comments sound like that. But many others are directly on topic, expressing concern about what NSA is doing, based on what NSA is known to have done before. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/us/nsa-foils-much-internet-encryption.html: "covertly influence and/or overtly leverage" designs to make them "exploitable".
2022.08.07 20:02:03 (1556339903499214848) from "Nadim Kobeissi (@nadim@symbolic.software) (@kaepora)" = "Nadim Kobeissi (@kaepora)", replying to "Nadim Kobeissi (@nadim@symbolic.software) (@kaepora)" = "Nadim Kobeissi (@kaepora)" (1556339686284607491):
If that is indeed what you meant to imply, then it deserves to be said explicitly. If it is not what you meant to imply, then folks are putting pretty inflammatory words in your mouth. As such, being explicit here is important either way.
2022.08.07 20:15:37 (1556343320212688896) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Nadim Kobeissi (@nadim@symbolic.software) (@kaepora)" = "Nadim Kobeissi (@kaepora)" (1556339903499214848):
Certain people are falsely attributing to the blog post an inflammatory bribery claim. I never made that claim, in the blog post or anywhere else. The claim is totally out of whack with what the blog post explicitly says. Read for yourself; don't get suckered by disinformation.
2022.08.07 20:51:30 (1556352349844774912) from "Probabilita (@kora@chaos.social) (@dakoraa)":
May I point out that being right (as I think you are) is not the point; the point is to convince the public. To me, it seems that in this you are loosing ground… For secure crypto, I think it bears considering whether there isn't a better PR strategy to deal with that.
2022.08.07 20:52:00 (1556352476600827905) from "Probabilita (@kora@chaos.social) (@dakoraa)", replying to "Probabilita (@kora@chaos.social) (@dakoraa)" (1556352349844774912):
I don't think most are reading your post very closely; they're mixing trust in NIST and "the crypto community"; pulling the discussion to a personal level. Which works on a public stage because reasoning about a feud is easier than reasoning about procedural soundness