3 ms·

"No offense, but this is a security product from someone with no documented (as far as we can tell) expertise or experience in this area. " This is my theory o

by swalsh 12y ago

"No offense, but this is a security product from someone with no documented (as far as we can tell) expertise or experience in this area. " This is my theory on why santoshi released bitcoin anonymously. ad hominem attacks like this are way too common in security. Often there's some justifications, but i'd prefer if conversations were about the content alone.

PeterWhittaker 12y ago
I'm not sure that this actually qualifies as an ad hominem attack. In cases such as this, a lack of experience and expertise is a serious concern. True, there may well be outliers who, with little to no previous experience in a field, are able to master and advance it - but they are outliers. As to specific comparison with Santoshi and Bitcoin, it doesn't stand, due to the relatively poor history and documentation for LogDog and the relatively greater history and documentation for Bitcoin: There is the 2008 research paper that built upon well-known and well-examined previous work on electronic cash, anonymous payments, etc., etc., and there is the subsequent open source client. No one ever said "trust us, this is cool". Instead, they wrote detailed papers and code and released those to the world - and we made up our own minds. LogDog is, by comparison, sui generis, a thing of itself, that has sprung into being with neither preamble nor publicized foundations. URB may be the outlier. Or not. Given the lack of documentation, the lack of openness, and the apparent lack of expertise, we are but wise to raise the questions. So far, URB seems responsive and engaged, and not particulary evasive. Those are good things for that particular hominid.
the_af 12y ago
This is not an ad hominem. Security is a notoriously difficult field, made worse by the fact that bad security is often very hard to tell from good security. Asking for the credentials (and the research) of someone claiming to have a new security product is a shortcut to knowing how well acquainted they are with this difficult field. Yes, it's a shortcut, but it's also warranted. It doesn't mean they won't be heard, just that they will be heard with healthy skepticism.

by swalsh 12y ago

PeterWhittaker 12y ago

I'm not sure that this actually qualifies as an ad hominem attack. In cases such as this, a lack of experience and expertise is a serious concern. True, there may well be outliers who, with little to no previous experience in a field, are able to master and advance it - but they are outliers. As to specific comparison with Santoshi and Bitcoin, it doesn't stand, due to the relatively poor history and documentation for LogDog and the relatively greater history and documentation for Bitcoin: There is the 2008 research paper that built upon well-known and well-examined previous work on electronic cash, anonymous payments, etc., etc., and there is the subsequent open source client. No one ever said "trust us, this is cool". Instead, they wrote detailed papers and code and released those to the world - and we made up our own minds. LogDog is, by comparison, sui generis, a thing of itself, that has sprung into being with neither preamble nor publicized foundations. URB may be the outlier. Or not. Given the lack of documentation, the lack of openness, and the apparent lack of expertise, we are but wise to raise the questions. So far, URB seems responsive and engaged, and not particulary evasive. Those are good things for that particular hominid.

the_af 12y ago

This is not an ad hominem. Security is a notoriously difficult field, made worse by the fact that bad security is often very hard to tell from good security. Asking for the credentials (and the research) of someone claiming to have a new security product is a shortcut to knowing how well acquainted they are with this difficult field. Yes, it's a shortcut, but it's also warranted. It doesn't mean they won't be heard, just that they will be heard with healthy skepticism.