4 ms·

I agree on all three points. I might even agree on the proposed name; not that I care too much. All I'm saying is that I'm happy the state of art of fast (but

I agree on all three points. I might even agree on the proposed name; not that I care too much. All I'm saying is that I'm happy the state of art of fast (but insecure) generators is improving and people have better options than cranky old LCGs or Mersenne Twister (ugh!). I don't know why they brought up non-invertibility. But, at a glance, I see a new RNG that might be at least twice as fast as a comparable variant of PCG while offering similar or better statistical performance. That's exactly the kind of development I like to see.

maqp 5y ago
It's great that insecure fast RNGs are improving, but it's extremely important to be responsible about how they should be promoted. 1. Insecurity needs to be in the name: Make it Insecure<Your RNG Name Here>. This is extremely important. Since the intended use-context is going to be non-security critical, anyway, it's actually good that it states it's insecure. That way you know you're not accidentally using RNG where security properties might cause any bottle-necks. At the same time the misuse resistance of the RNG increases significantly. 2. Make sure this is not default, but something that needs to be imported separately from non-security context, such as module about statistics, simulation etc.