">no formal definition of security properties, no formal threat model, analysis that is limited to a specific attack strategy Why would they do that?" So that

">no formal definition of security properties, no formal threat model, analysis that is limited to a specific attack strategy Why would they do that?" So that we can determine whether or not the system is secure before we commit to it. Replacing insecure cryptosystems is usually very expensive. "the system has not been defeated in any meaningful capacity. That is a strong indicator of security." As far as the Germans knew, Enigma had not be broken in any "meaningful capacity" either. They knew there were weaknesses but they did not believe anyone would go to the lengths required to exploit those weaknesses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TICOM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TICOM Saying "well it has not been broken yet (as far as we know)!" is not a very good argument for security. Even AES has better arguments for security, based on models and heuristics that took many decades of work to develop. "This is by far one of the biggest achievements in applied computer science in the last 25 years" More than CAT scans? More than the Internet? Even if we limit ourselves to cryptography, it is clear that that is untrue. What do you think sees more widespread use: Bitcoin, or Kerberos? What do you think had a wider impact on the world: Bitcoin, or HBO encrypting its satellite feeds (for those who are not familiar, that was a major step toward widespread DRM)? Bitcoin as an application of cryptography or computer science is not even a blip on the radar of achievement.