dsacco

61 ms·

481.
by dsacco 9y ago
In case tptacek doesn’t respond, I’d like to give a (hopefully helpful) answer in the aggregate sense: many members of the information security industry refuse to work with the public sector (read: military and intelligence agencies) for re
482.
by dsacco 9y ago
Thanks for writing this. I didn't like the opening paragraph either, and your comment is a better rebuttal than I could have written. Colin, I think this is a good perspective on Spectre and Meltdown, but it feels like the entire openi
483.
by dsacco 9y ago
> Your analysis is wrong. Startups and crypto investments can be seen as bets and a 10x increase in favor of you is a lot. So you think a 1000% increase in likelihood to win the lottery is meaningful? I’m not saying a 1000% increase is
484.
by dsacco 9y ago
Sure, but a 1000% higher likelihood is close to meaningless if we’re talking about extremely tiny fractions in absolute terms. For example, a substance that increases your baseline risk of some type of cancer from 0.000003% to 0.00003% is b
485.
by dsacco 9y ago
And how many members do you know of each, in absolute terms?
486.
by dsacco 9y ago
Absolutely, I agree with you. The speculation around gold pushes significantly higher extrinsic value onto it. I'm just making a point that it has a floor of intrinsic value as well, even if that's smaller than the speculative act
487.
by dsacco 9y ago
It’s an abuse of definitional scope. The commenter is not arguing against a point that has not been made (that would be a strawman); instead, they’re arguing against the applicability of terminology in an argument that was made, but by us
488.
by dsacco 9y ago
> There is no intrinsic value in gold. Or any other thing. The only value things have are the exchange and use values humans imbue them with. Your definition of “intrinsic value” does not match that of standard economic terminology. Go
489.
by dsacco 9y ago
> Gold has not intrinsic value either. Nothing has to be honest. Unless you mean something very different from the established consensus of economics when you use the term, “intrinsic value”, both of those statements are false.
490.
by dsacco 9y ago
> The PGP signature is a pretty bad idea if this goes criminal, and since they've already reported the vulnerability via less than anonymous means they can be tracked. No it isn’t. Make a new key-pair for the signature. This key-p
491.
by dsacco 9y ago
Assuming the lawyers are cautious and risk-averse (as they should be), their counsel will be pretty predictable: don’t do it. On the other hand, if we’re speaking just about doing it anyway, it’s basically trivial to do this as the commente
492.
by dsacco 9y ago
This bifurcation doesn't really make sense in cryptography research. Most cryptographers developing practical systems for real world usage are academics, or at the very least used to be academics.
493.
by dsacco 9y ago
Cryptography is almost entirely applied mathematics. If you're not working with (typically advanced) mathematics, you're not actually doing cryptography. That might come across as pretentious, but it's true - industry cryptog
494.
by dsacco 9y ago
Okay, you can use different terminology if you’d like, but per your original comment I responded to, it is still impossible to do.
495.
by dsacco 9y ago
> What defines market making is the fact that you buy and sell the same commodity at the same time, taking advantage of the spread to make money. You need not be a formal market maker to increase liquidity. Technically speaking even re
496.
by dsacco 9y ago
No, quote stuffing can be used in latency arbitrage between different exchanges, but it is literally not possible to peek at an order before it arrives on at least the primary exchange of origin.
497.
by dsacco 9y ago
That's a good thing. Well-studied protocols are safer protocols, and significant money can pay for the best expertise in the world.
498.
by dsacco 9y ago
That was a nice read. I like these pieces about the historical context of financial instruments. > Michael Lewis details one such practice in his book Flash Boys, where market makers use superior networking technology to change the mark
499.
by dsacco 9y ago
> "vim vs emacs" is a holy war; the fact that Signal is more secure than Telegram is not, when there is a consensus among experts about the question. IMHO, calling it such is misleading. A holy war is determined by its propen
500.
by dsacco 9y ago
> In contrast, Telegram does no encryption at all for group messages, even though it advertises itself as an encrypted messenger, and even though Telegram users think that group chats are somehow secure. An attacker who compromises the
501.
by dsacco 9y ago
For precision, it’s good to distinguish between decentralization and permissionlessness as separate axes. Technically speaking the two are commonly positively correlated, but you can build centralized, permissionless systems and decentraliz
502.
by dsacco 9y ago
> Do you have a source for your first claim that cancelling to avoid a loss is insider trading? Yes: https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-7881.htm . The purpose of a prearranged stock plan is that it's auto
503.
by dsacco 9y ago
I agree this looks shady, but from a legality standpoint, does this take precedent over a pre-arranged stock trading plan that was adopted in 2015?
504.
by dsacco 9y ago
The scheduling plan was adopted in 2015 according to Intel. Regarding the second point, yes it's a grey area. Refraining to trade when the trade is part of a scheduled plan in order to avoid a loss is insider trading if you have priv
505.
by dsacco 9y ago
The scheduling plan was adopted in 2015, according to Intel.
506.
by dsacco 9y ago
My point is that it's not insider trading. I also didn't link to any Washington Post article in my comment, so it's not clear to me if you responded to the right comment here.
507.
by dsacco 9y ago
> Because he has a fiduciary duty to the shareholders, and by selling his shares he is misappropriating company information for personal benefit. This was a scheduled sale. It's not clear to me what the SEC is seeking to investiga
508.
by dsacco 9y ago
> No but if you treat the "key exchange" process as a one time pad key, it doesn't matter that the actual ciphertext can be intercepted, since it's impossible to decrypt it. Sure, I'm not saying you can't
509.
by dsacco 9y ago
> Encryption that breaks if someone other than the authorized parties observes it. Something which isn't possible with "traditional" encryption. As stated, this isn't possible with encryption enabled by quantum key
510.
by dsacco 9y ago
I'm in the camp that quantum cryptography (i.e. quantum key exchange) is silly. If quantum key exchange is not easier to use than a one-time pad, that's an argument against both, not an argument for a one-time pad. One-time pads a

More ›