On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 3:13 PM, silky <michaelsli...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 2:29 PM, David Burstin <david.burs...@gmail.com> wrote: >> This article: >> >> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19520-random-numbers-created-out-of-nothing.html >> sounds interesting, but being Friday, I was wanting to hear the thoughts of >> those who know much more about this kind of stuff than I do. (That means >> you, Silky et al)
[...] > It's cool though, and I don't know enough about the physics of it to > really have any useful opinions. But it's probably interesting, from a > cryptography point of view, to wonder what is better: numbers from an > unknown source, or numbers from "known" sources with "known" seeds > that you can just combine in an unknown way. Relevant thread from the crypto mailing list on this topic: http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptogra...@metzdowd.com/msg11737.html The QM component of it is interesting, because I suppose it depends how you feel about the QM model we have. If you think it is complete, and that there is legitimately no way and no other model such that determinism can be introduced, then okay, you have a undeterministic generation of numbers. But are there easier ways to get undetermistic numbers? Maybe, because you just need to make them undeterminable *to a specific person* (i.e. the attacker, whom you can model), not to the entire universe at large :P :) -- silky http://dnoondt.wordpress.com/ "Every morning when I wake up, I experience an exquisite joy — the joy of being this signature."
