Post A Comment or Reply
• NOTE: Comments will NOT display until they are moderated to prevent SPAM.
• Starred input fields noted with * are required
(non-blank / valid values), others are optional.
• E-mail addresses are kept private and not published publicly.
• Comments are moderated before publication and may not be published for any number of reasons,
arbitrary and otherwise, including insufficient or incomplete form information.
• Comments should preferably be in English.
• Although all comments are read, they may not be replied to by the CypherMaster.
• Strong attempts are made to not censor or censure, but management reserves the right to
edit comments for content, including length, word usage, etc.
• SPAMmers will be violated.
• If replying to a comment, the comment to which you are replying is shown below the form for reference.
• Please be civil and respectful and G-rated (for the kiddies). Thank you.
William Donnelly
Tue, Jul 8, 2014 05:34 am (MDT)
sci.crypt and other groups
Since the conversation at sci.crypt (and too many groups) falls somewhere between questionable and useless, except for the very few people who are interested in contributing worthwhile commentary to the discussion, I will only discuss Simplexity here now. If people are interested in it, they can make comments and ask questions here, hopefully without all the useless noise.
(I have instituted an artificial intelligence program here that prevents asinine, overly and unduly negative, and derogatory comments (and the like) -- I should probably patent that algorithm)
Contrary to what some people arbitrarily (and erroneously) claim and suggest, Simplexity has not come close to being proved unsecure, breakable and crackable (using an 'elegant' attack -- afaik, it is absolutely unbreakable/uncrackable using a brute force attack), etc. Its status still remains to be seen.