4 ms·
Yeah, sadly this paper is a reasonable example of the status quo. There is a contribution in there under all the cruft (if we assume a trusted leader, and we ca
by Rhapso 2y ago
Yeah, sadly this paper is a reasonable example of the status quo. There is a contribution in there under all the cruft (if we assume a trusted leader, and we can authenticate message origin, we don't have to use Public/private key encryption to build a shared secret key, hash functions and k-of-n secret sharing are enough) it is just very narrow and they feel like they have to "dress it up" a lot.
If they actually wrote their contribution in clear terms they couldn't get it published because it sounds too simple. I think they should be able able to get it published without inflating it's complexity like this. They are just reacting to a broken system.
- c0742e9366 2y agoIt’s unfair to equate this paper to obviously flawed ones since all their claims seem to be properly substantiated. Also, the protocol does not assume a trusted leader (otherwise agreement would be trivially solved). In general, I am also not fond of this writing style. However, if one reads more papers published in this community/area, then one notices that many of them are written similarly. Since the primary audience of these papers are other researchers in the same area, they are presumably able to read past the cruft efficiently. I also agree that academia incentivizes overselling results. In this case, however, this is a nice result and not oversold by the authors (being somewhat knowledgeable in this field).