4 ms·

One of the authors of this paper is Adi Shamir. One of the guys who wrote the RSA algorithm in 1977. RSA -> Ron Rivest, Adi Shamir and Leonard Adleman This i

by yelnatz 13y ago

One of the authors of this paper is Adi Shamir. One of the guys who wrote the RSA algorithm in 1977. RSA -> Ron Rivest, Adi Shamir and Leonard Adleman This is legit.

jodrellblank 13y ago
"This will be reproducible because the author is famous". (Appeal to authority fallacy?)
- smtddr 13y ago
  The logic here is that the author's credibility would be ruined if this turned out to be a lie. What reason would he have for taking that risk?
  - nilved 13y ago
    This is one of HN's more embarrassing traits. Too smart for the Kardashians, but they'll get on their knees before Shamir, Snowden and Schneier. He's been wrong before. Recently, like last week, he was wrong about Satoshi. Don't appeal to authority.
- myko 13y ago
  Appealing to authority is only a fallacy if the authority isn't actually an authority / is considered infallible. This doesn't seem to be the case here.
  - jodrellblank 13y ago
    It is? I thought the fallacy was using an unrelated property as evidence to support the truth of a factual statement (the author's previous work, shoe size, favourite music, etc).
  - nilved 13y ago
    No, that definition is incorrect.
- alexkus 13y ago
  Indeed, but his track record isn't absolutely perfect if you remember his misguided analysis of the Bitcoin blockchain, a paper which was subsequently withdrawn[1]. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6804440 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6804440
- 4ad 13y ago
  No, that was not the claim. My understanding of your parent's post is that he claimed that the research was real scientific research (which may be wrong), not a hoax, without expressing any opinion about the validity of the claims. If $RANDOMDUDE says something is bullshit without having looked at the research and $PROVENEXPERT after a lot of research says it is not, it doesn't mean the expert is right. The facts should stand on their own, regardless of who made them. However, it means $RANDOMDUDE's opinion is completely uninformed and the research is worth looking into.
- amit_m 13y ago
  If you can't bother to understand the work then heuristics are your best bet. In this case, the authors are leading academics from good computer science departments. This makes the probability of the paper being an outright hoax very low. They would be risking their careers and the respect of their peers - and for what exactly? Shamir in particular is already at the top of the game (full professor + turing award + many millions of dollars from royalties). Now, mistakes CAN happen. But in this case, it would be very hard to make one. If they built a system that reconstructs the cryptographic key then you could compare the keys on both sides.

by yelnatz 13y ago

One of the authors of this paper is Adi Shamir. One of the guys who wrote the RSA algorithm in 1977. RSA -> Ron Rivest, Adi Shamir and Leonard Adleman This is legit.

jodrellblank 13y ago

"This will be reproducible because the author is famous". (Appeal to authority fallacy?)

smtddr 13y ago
The logic here is that the author's credibility would be ruined if this turned out to be a lie. What reason would he have for taking that risk?
- nilved 13y ago
  This is one of HN's more embarrassing traits. Too smart for the Kardashians, but they'll get on their knees before Shamir, Snowden and Schneier. He's been wrong before. Recently, like last week, he was wrong about Satoshi. Don't appeal to authority.
myko 13y ago
Appealing to authority is only a fallacy if the authority isn't actually an authority / is considered infallible. This doesn't seem to be the case here.
- jodrellblank 13y ago
  It is? I thought the fallacy was using an unrelated property as evidence to support the truth of a factual statement (the author's previous work, shoe size, favourite music, etc).
- nilved 13y ago
  No, that definition is incorrect.
alexkus 13y ago
Indeed, but his track record isn't absolutely perfect if you remember his misguided analysis of the Bitcoin blockchain, a paper which was subsequently withdrawn[1]. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6804440 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6804440
4ad 13y ago
No, that was not the claim. My understanding of your parent's post is that he claimed that the research was real scientific research (which may be wrong), not a hoax, without expressing any opinion about the validity of the claims. If $RANDOMDUDE says something is bullshit without having looked at the research and $PROVENEXPERT after a lot of research says it is not, it doesn't mean the expert is right. The facts should stand on their own, regardless of who made them. However, it means $RANDOMDUDE's opinion is completely uninformed and the research is worth looking into.
amit_m 13y ago
If you can't bother to understand the work then heuristics are your best bet. In this case, the authors are leading academics from good computer science departments. This makes the probability of the paper being an outright hoax very low. They would be risking their careers and the respect of their peers - and for what exactly? Shamir in particular is already at the top of the game (full professor + turing award + many millions of dollars from royalties). Now, mistakes CAN happen. But in this case, it would be very hard to make one. If they built a system that reconstructs the cryptographic key then you could compare the keys on both sides.