// , “It is not so important to be serious as it is to be serious about the important things. The monkey wears an expression of seriousness... but the monkey is serious because he itches."(No/No)
Fie! My gifs and outdated pop culture references shall blot out the sun!
If it were just me, I'd say I'll douse it for a month to do some homework and re-light the torch then.
But first I should write on behalf of the original source of my skepticism, a crypto nerd far nerdier than me. This is the diagram that one of my crypto friends looked at and shook his head "nuh-uh" in a matter of minutes:
"Zoom, enhance"
But I'll admit, that was back in the dark days of the 1.0 version.
I've already noticed some eyebrow raisers, at which I did indeed arch an eyebrow, in 2.0. For instance, for a protocol designed for end-to-end encryption between clients, the trust model for the key generation seems to include a lot more server than I'd expect. As in, any at all.
Also, I get if they don't want to publish the source code for this, but why not at least the math? And let poor schlubs like me at least LARP as people who can math things?
The sentiment of a quote from one of the more critical articles (which I thought was a bit too one-sided) on Telegram's "soooper-seeekrit" algorithm and source code seems to echo my own, here:
"...That said, I don’t know if it’s broken. But it’s just weird.”
Fie! My gifs and outdated pop culture references shall blot out the sun!
If it were just me, I'd say I'll douse it for a month to do some homework and re-light the torch then.
But first I should write on behalf of the original source of my skepticism, a crypto nerd far nerdier than me. This is the diagram that one of my crypto friends looked at and shook his head "nuh-uh" in a matter of minutes:
"Zoom, enhance"
But I'll admit, that was back in the dark days of the 1.0 version.
I've already noticed some eyebrow raisers, at which I did indeed arch an eyebrow, in 2.0. For instance, for a protocol designed for end-to-end encryption between clients, the trust model for the key generation seems to include a lot more server than I'd expect. As in, any at all.
Also, I get if they don't want to publish the source code for this, but why not at least the math? And let poor schlubs like me at least LARP as people who can math things?
The sentiment of a quote from one of the more critical articles (which I thought was a bit too one-sided) on Telegram's "soooper-seeekrit" algorithm and source code seems to echo my own, here:
"...That said, I don’t know if it’s broken. But it’s just weird.”
---gizmodo.com/why-you-should-stop-us...
P.S. As the initial belligerent (aka OP), I feel I must concede to you the last word.