3 ms·

Both gave speeches about the history of their research: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTGqP0nxX08 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTGqP0nxX08 https://www.yo

Both gave speeches about the history of their research: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTGqP0nxX08 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTGqP0nxX08 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BJuuUxCaaY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BJuuUxCaaY Merkle had a huge influence also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Merkle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Merkle

rurban 11y ago
Huge influence? It's his paper, his invention and this price without him is again a huge fuckup. But he should be used to that in the meantime.
- bachback 11y ago
  certainly don't disagree. An acquaintance of mine has trying to get him work on Cryptocurrencies where Merkle trees are all around. he showed some interest and was very open to new ideas. he has a nice website http://www.merkle.com/ http://www.merkle.com/ http://www.merkle.com/1974/RejectionLetter.pdf http://www.merkle.com/1974/RejectionLetter.pdf "I had failed to provide any references to the prior work on public key cryptography, and the reasons previous workers in the field had rejected it as impossible. I should have looked up "public key cryptography" on Google before submitting my paper. My defense is feeble: there was no Google, the term "public key cryptography" did not yet exist, and there were no previous workers in the field. There were no words for what I had done, and looking up a concept to show that no one had previously thought of it is difficult. This is not a unique problem: it illustrates a problem faced by anyone trying to explain a new idea to an "expert" who expects a properly referenced article anytime anyone tries to explain something to them. The more a new idea is unrelated to any prior idea or concept the more it must appear as a squawling bastard, naked and alone, appearing de novo and lacking any respectable pedigree or family to vouch for its acceptability."

rurban 11y ago

Huge influence? It's his paper, his invention and this price without him is again a huge fuckup. But he should be used to that in the meantime.

bachback 11y ago
certainly don't disagree. An acquaintance of mine has trying to get him work on Cryptocurrencies where Merkle trees are all around. he showed some interest and was very open to new ideas. he has a nice website http://www.merkle.com/ http://www.merkle.com/ http://www.merkle.com/1974/RejectionLetter.pdf http://www.merkle.com/1974/RejectionLetter.pdf "I had failed to provide any references to the prior work on public key cryptography, and the reasons previous workers in the field had rejected it as impossible. I should have looked up "public key cryptography" on Google before submitting my paper. My defense is feeble: there was no Google, the term "public key cryptography" did not yet exist, and there were no previous workers in the field. There were no words for what I had done, and looking up a concept to show that no one had previously thought of it is difficult. This is not a unique problem: it illustrates a problem faced by anyone trying to explain a new idea to an "expert" who expects a properly referenced article anytime anyone tries to explain something to them. The more a new idea is unrelated to any prior idea or concept the more it must appear as a squawling bastard, naked and alone, appearing de novo and lacking any respectable pedigree or family to vouch for its acceptability."