3 ms·

What qualifies me? It's my opinion, I don't need qualification to have an opinion and you don't need to care about it. But since you asked, I'm a privacy enthus

What qualifies me? It's my opinion, I don't need qualification to have an opinion and you don't need to care about it. But since you asked, I'm a privacy enthusiast with a good understanding of cryptography (not PhD level and I would never claim it to be). I don't see why my job is relevant. I've wanted to reinvent hidden services for years and you're wrong about it being a matter of motivation. It really is a matter of both time and not wanting to bring attention to myself. Yes, the idea of 'heartbeat groups' is as you described. Another reply linked this which sounds very similar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaffing_and_winnowing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaffing_and_winnowing I attacked an inanimate software project out of dissatisfaction and you attacked me. That isn't justified.

krageon 5y ago
> you attacked me You were not attacked, your response was simply taken apart and questioned. If having someone be skeptical of you is an attack, that would make talking about subjects where everyone does not already agree very hard. > What qualifies me? > a good understanding of cryptography > not PhD level > I don't see why my job is relevant. > It really is a matter of [...] time Well, I think it is reasonable to ask why you feel like you know what changes to make to make something more secure. A reader now has to assume that you: - Have not studied the subject in an academic way - Do not have work experience to make up for that lack of study - Do not have time to devote to the subject (for example, for self-study) This would lead a naive reader to the conclusion that you are not academically suited, not professionally suited and not suited through self-study to comment on this subject in a capacity that means anyone should take your suggestions to heart (perhaps incorporating them into the software under discussion). The same would go for people that you would submit changes to (had you had any time for this). That leads me to believe the only point of your commentary is the commentary itself. I guess it is fair to say I don't understand this. Perhaps GP was getting at that, perhaps not :) Edit: To be clear, I wish to understand if there is an understanding to be had beyond "I just felt like it".

krageon 5y ago

> you attacked me You were not attacked, your response was simply taken apart and questioned. If having someone be skeptical of you is an attack, that would make talking about subjects where everyone does not already agree very hard. > What qualifies me? > a good understanding of cryptography > not PhD level > I don't see why my job is relevant. > It really is a matter of [...] time Well, I think it is reasonable to ask why you feel like you know what changes to make to make something more secure. A reader now has to assume that you: - Have not studied the subject in an academic way - Do not have work experience to make up for that lack of study - Do not have time to devote to the subject (for example, for self-study) This would lead a naive reader to the conclusion that you are not academically suited, not professionally suited and not suited through self-study to comment on this subject in a capacity that means anyone should take your suggestions to heart (perhaps incorporating them into the software under discussion). The same would go for people that you would submit changes to (had you had any time for this). That leads me to believe the only point of your commentary is the commentary itself. I guess it is fair to say I don't understand this. Perhaps GP was getting at that, perhaps not :) Edit: To be clear, I wish to understand if there is an understanding to be had beyond "I just felt like it".