(I will use the word "nonsense" instead of "lies." Out of
semi-politeness.)
On Tuesday, April 24, 2001, at 09:21 PM, Ray Dillinger wrote:
>> But I am willing to give you a chance: Just how many of the books on
>> my list had you either already read or did you locate and read in the
>> days between when my list was published and when you announced that
>> they were not very useful?
>
> Rand and Vinge; I had already read Hayek.
Then how do you know the reading list is "not useful"? You have only
read a few books out of the list I gave (added to by others, too). Also,
did you actually _read_ "Atlas Shrugged" in the brief time between when
you saw my list and when you reported it as "not useful"? And did you
actually find a copy of "True Names" in this period? Impressive, if not
a lie.
>
>> Read Schneier.
>> Schneier or any other of the N basic crypto texts. Diffie-Hellman,
>> for example. Blacknet, for another example. This is really basic,
>> basic stuff.
>
> Yes, it is. Stuff that does not get talked about here. For
> that reason, this list is near useless to anyone who actually
> wants to learn about cryptography. Scheier was where I started,
> but nobody wanted to talk about anything in there or develop
> any of thos ideas.
Nonsense. Remailers (Type I and II, Mixmaster), havens, Crypto++, Magic
Money, the crypto breaks by Damien G., Ian Goldberg, David Wagner,
others.
You are utterly ignorant of what has happened on the list.
> I now have the springer-verlag CD with the
> book that is basically a table of contents for seventeen years
> of crypto conferences. That is also a big help, although it's
> frustrating to work with.
>
> A vast number of articles, yes. But no discussion.
Nonsense.
>
>> Because you have shown a stubborn unwillingness to even learn the
>> basics....and yet you claim the reading list I put out was useless to
>> you, implying you had read and absorbed and evaluate those
>> books...which I doubt.
>
> Vinge and Rand, and Hayek too for that matter, had squat to do
> with cryptographic protocols. Vinge described a few cryptographic
> applications, but the underlying PROTOCOLS were abbreviated or
> missing. They were not what he was writing about.
You are pitiable. An abject literalist, unable to abstract.
>
>> Your questions mark you as profoundly ignorant of even the basics,
>
> Yes, damnit, I feel that I *am* ignorant of a lot of basics,
> because I read stuff, I think maybe I understand it and maybe
> I don't, and nobody will TALK about it!
As Declan pointed out, you are like someone saying "no one will TALK
about how senators are elected, dammit!," while repeatedly ignoring
suggestions to read the Constitution.
> Nobody is willing to
> bounce ideas or discuss it in detail.
Nonsense. Read the discussions over the many years of the list. True, we
don't
discuss "how keys are exchanged" anymore...that level of discussion was
too basic even in the first months of the list. Figure out why...that's
a homework exercise for you.
> Instead they want to
> take the damn stuff as read, forget how it works, and start
> invoking some fuzzy variation of it in some damn fantasy, the
> same way Bell did with the idea of digital cash -- it was
> pretty damn convincing until I looked close and realized he
> hadn't done his homework.
I get tired of saying this: no one on this list, that I can recall, took
Bell's proposal as anything more than "theater."
>
> How many of the lofty invocations of other cryptographic
> concepts here won't hold water because they've been invoked in
> the same fuzzy way by ignorant people or posers? I won't know until
> I take them apart myself, will I? But trying to get the details
> of them from this list so they _CAN_ be analyzed is like trying
> to nail jelly to a tree, because nobody's interested in the
> "implementation details."
Nonsense.
>> and, more importantly, of being willing to spend some time reading
>> even the most basic, core texts. Asking about how keys are exchanged,
>> how things work without "trusted servers," etc., marks you as a
>> complete newbie.
>
> Those are examples of the questions I had when I came here. Not
> the questions I still have.
You claimed recently that you were on the list when Vulis and/or
Detweiler were on the list. Was this a stretching of the truth as well?
If you were on the list in 1996, then you have had 5 years to "catch up"
on the basics of cryptography.
Why haven't you read these materials?
You claim no one talks in detail. Have you read the articles on PipeNet
by Wei Dai? How about the analyses by Hal Finney of DC Nets? How about
my own Cyphernomicon?
And so on, for literally hundreds of posters and tens of thousands of
nontrivial posts.
>> You claim you have been reading the list since Detweiler was active,
>> which means since about 1995-96.
>
> No, I didn't. I claimed I had read the list for about a semester (I
> was taking a networks class, I read a lot of semi-related stuff)
> during 1995 and I've been elsewhere since. I left for six years and
> came back.
Too bad for us.
--Tim May
