4 ms·
Vigna's points are addressed by PCG's author directly here: http://www.pcg-random.org/posts/on-vignas-pcg-critique.html http://www.pcg-random.org/posts/on-vigna
by myWindoonn 8y ago
Vigna's points are addressed by PCG's author directly here: http://www.pcg-random.org/posts/on-vignas-pcg-critique.html http://www.pcg-random.org/posts/on-vignas-pcg-critique.html
- tptacek 8y agoI don't know about the rest of it, but the section of this response about prediction difficulty is word salad, and it's pretty amusing that the "pcg32 is annoying to predict" claim is backed by a proof of concept of a paper from 1988 (it is approximately "problem on an academic CTF" hard; someone should do that challenge, since I feel like people are always looking for straightforward-but-plausible applications of LLL on these things). Vigna didn't claim to have designed an RNG that was difficult to predict. But the PCG author did.