ASLEC Latest Site Uploads.

132 views
Skip to first unread message

austin obyrne

unread,
Nov 15, 2021, 11:36:17 AM11/15/21
to
A fully annotated demonstration of 1 )
General Decryption Program Mark_0 and 2)
a fully annotated worked example of decrypting
the earlier demonstration program called (milestone).
(CipherTextFile_9.dat)
https://www.aslec.uk

Enjoy,

Austin O'Byrne

Richard Heathfield

unread,
Nov 15, 2021, 12:08:58 PM11/15/21
to
The fact that you can decipher each character independently betrays the
lack of diffusion in your cipher. It's like you were trying really hard
to make life easy for Eve.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

MM

unread,
Nov 15, 2021, 12:58:40 PM11/15/21
to
Austin, do you have some philosophical objection to fixing bugs, or
even finding out what they are?

There are at least 3 significant bugs in these programs, and very many
smaller ones. If this is how you WANT folks to judge you, so be it. What
you have does not suggest you understand what you are doing.

Fixing these is easy, and will make your program easier to understand
and MUCH harder to break.

Do you have some objection to asking for help? Not asking, when you
so clearly need it only makes you look ignorant, arrogant and stubborn.

What you have is called "cargo-cult" programming. It is indicative of
programming by copy/paste, and not by understanding. A great deal
of your Ada code serves no purpose, or is done in ridiculously verbose
ways.

Your cipher is then weakened by your self-imposed coding limitations.
You could fix these with considerably less effort than it took to write e.g.
Shuttlepads.

Do you really want this to be your legacy?

M
--

austin obyrne

unread,
Nov 15, 2021, 2:09:38 PM11/15/21
to
I say with all sincerity that you and your colleauges
should go ahead and fix whatever you see can be
improved in any way. I am aware that there may
lots of applications that I am unaware of starting
of course with the obviuous one - The Ada programming
or even using some other language.

Go ahead by all means but I'm afraid you are on your own
I'm not really up to any new work,

Yes go ahead by all means. Let me know what you plan to do.

AOB

MM

unread,
Nov 15, 2021, 2:28:35 PM11/15/21
to
On Monday, 15 November 2021 at 19:09:38 UTC, austin obyrne wrote:
> I say with all sincerity that you and your colleauges
> should go ahead and fix whatever you see can be
> improved in any way. I am aware that there may
> lots of applications that I am unaware of starting
> of course with the obviuous one - The Ada programming
> or even using some other language.

You didn't answer my question.

Do you object to fixing bugs? This is in your existing code, not new.

Most of the fixes just make the EXISTING code shorter and more
readable. Shorter code is easier to maintain.

Some of the fixes are very slightly more complex, but if you
accept help, then somebody else can give you the changes,
with very little required from you.

There is nothing wrong with getting help. There is plenty wrong
with intractability.

> Yes go ahead by all means. Let me know what you plan to do.

Why do you need to know what I will do? I've rewritten your code
before, and you ignore it, then go on to waste huge amounts of
time copying the same mistakes.

Is this your plan? Make the same mistakes forever by copy/pasting
broken code out of sheer stubbornness?

M
--

Richard Heathfield

unread,
Nov 15, 2021, 2:43:57 PM11/15/21
to
On 15/11/2021 19:09, austin obyrne wrote:

<snip>

> I say with all sincerity that you and your colleauges
> should go ahead and fix whatever you see can be
> improved in any way.

There's nothing to fix. No coherent or comprehensive algorithm
description, no current reference implementation, nothing. Questions
asked of the algorithm designer meet with circumlocutions or
stonewalling. The easiest fix is to move on; nothing to see here,
nothing to do.

If it were any good, that might be different. But it just isn't.

austin obyrne

unread,
Nov 15, 2021, 3:31:35 PM11/15/21
to
Yes , go ahead and fix any bugs you see, I have invented
vector cryptography that's my claim to fame but I am not
as experienced as you and your colleagues in writing implementations.
Up to now everything has been hard won and my modus operandi was get it to work
as best I could and let let better people refine my efforts.
I know my limitations.
I think it is true to say that we are at that point now and I am
quite happy to withdaraw and let you guys do what I am unable to do.

I don't think I know what a bug looks like!

austin obyrne

unread,
Nov 15, 2021, 3:47:43 PM11/15/21
to
On Monday, 15 November 2021 at 19:28:35 UTC, MM wrote:
The truth is I don't know any better. I know that my ada code
can be shortened greatly but I have preferred all along to make
my code as pedagogically orientated as possible. I despise slick
minimalised coding.

It doesn't sound as if you and your colleagues are very interested in my
suggestions in which case I am happy to continue with the status quo.

AOB

Richard Heathfield

unread,
Nov 15, 2021, 3:51:50 PM11/15/21
to
As far as I'm aware, you have not yet published a reference
implementation for the latest version of ASLEC.

MM

unread,
Nov 15, 2021, 3:57:51 PM11/15/21
to
On Monday, 15 November 2021 at 20:31:35 UTC, austin obyrne wrote:
> Yes , go ahead and fix any bugs you see, I have invented
> vector cryptography that's my claim to fame but I am not
> as experienced as you and your colleagues in writing implementations.

You are missing my point. YOUR code has significant errors, and
you are putting up stubborn resistance to the notion that they be
fixed.

Why?

> Up to now everything has been hard won and my modus operandi was get it to work
> as best I could and let let better people refine my efforts.

When people offer you improvements, you dismiss them rudely
and ignore them. Instead, you could be making YOUR work better.

> I know my limitations.

That's OK. We all have limitations. I get help from people all the time
in my professional work. It makes my work better, and my help makes
theirs better. That's how the world works.

> I think it is true to say that we are at that point now and I am
> quite happy to withdaraw and let you guys do what I am unable to do.

Instead of showing minimal curiosity? Aren't you the least bit curious
to know what these bugs are?

> I don't think I know what a bug looks like!

That's the first step. Bugs aren't obvious things like comments or
procedures. Bugs are coding errors (not syntax errors) that cause the
program to function incorrectly.

Here's a silly example:
-- This adds A and B and prints the result
puts(item=>A-B);

The bug is that B is subtracted from A, in contrast to the comment.
Either the comment is wrong, or the 'A-B' needs to be replaced with
'A+B'. Which is correct is dependent on the requirement if the greater
program.

M
--


MM

unread,
Nov 15, 2021, 4:15:54 PM11/15/21
to
On Monday, 15 November 2021 at 20:47:43 UTC, austin obyrne wrote:

> The truth is I don't know any better. I know that my ada code
> can be shortened greatly but I have preferred all along to make
> my code as pedagogically orientated as possible.

That is gracious of you to admit.

Your code is not "pedagogically orientated". It is verbose, error-prone,
hard-to read and unidiomatic.

> I despise slick minimalised coding.

That is a pity, as it places a barrier between you and clear expression.
Programs are supposed to be read by humans - they are a form of
communication. Your contempt of slickness and brevity hurts your
work's acceptance.

> It doesn't sound as if you and your colleagues are very interested in my
> suggestions in which case I am happy to continue with the status quo.

Your "suggestions" seem to be to avoid any kind of need to engage
yourself intellectually, or indeed with any integrity. Don't project this
on others.

M
--


austin obyrne

unread,
Nov 16, 2021, 5:25:56 AM11/16/21
to
So be it.

Richard Heathfield

unread,
Nov 16, 2021, 6:12:13 AM11/16/21
to
On 15/11/2021 21:15, MM wrote:
> Your "suggestions" seem to be to avoid any kind of need to engage
> yourself intellectually, or indeed with any integrity.

This may not be deliberate. I think AOB's belief in the utility of VC is
genuine, albeit misguided, but he has constructed such a ridiculously
Heath Robinson infrastructure for it that maintaining it must be
immensely wearying. He's made it ridiculously complicated even to change
something as simple as a key.

If he has suffered a life-changing medical condition (heart attack, say,
or a stroke, both of which are conditions that constantly sap one's
energy), he may no longer have the stamina required for conducting
substantial development work no matter how much he might want to, and
for others to do the work for him might be the only route left open to him.

If so, however, he's going entirely the wrong way about it.

> Don't project this
> on others.

Quite so.

austin obyrne

unread,
Nov 16, 2021, 6:55:52 AM11/16/21
to
You and MM are incapable of assimilating the information
I have copiously provided on my website and in daily posts.

It would be impossible for me to communicate with you by means of sci.crypt posts.

Sorry,

AOB

Richard Heathfield

unread,
Nov 16, 2021, 7:50:57 AM11/16/21
to
On 16/11/2021 11:55, austin obyrne wrote:

<snip>
>
> You and MM are incapable of assimilating the information
> I have copiously provided on my website and in daily posts.

MM and I have both assimilated enough information about vector
cryptography to recover plaintext, which recovery we have both
demonstrated right here in sci.crypt.

> It would be impossible for me to communicate with you by means of sci.crypt posts.

Strange, since he and I are able to communicate perfectly well with each
other. Maybe you're just not very good at communicating.

MM

unread,
Nov 16, 2021, 1:43:19 PM11/16/21
to
On Tuesday, 16 November 2021 at 11:55:52 UTC, austin obyrne wrote:
> You and MM are incapable of assimilating the information
> I have copiously provided on my website and in daily posts.

That is true. Assimilating badly-presented information is difficult, or
impossible if the presentation is poor enough.

What is needed is correct, clear and concise communication, but
you are saying that you won't even try.

> It would be impossible for me to communicate with you by means
> of sci.crypt posts.

I agree, but there are more than just us two. Very many people have
given up with you for the same reason - your unwillingness to try
to communicate clearly. Same applies to folks in comp.lang.ada.

> Sorry,

That's just patronising. There isn't an iota of regret in you, only
contempt.

M
--

Chris M. Thomasson

unread,
Nov 16, 2021, 3:12:02 PM11/16/21
to
On 11/16/2021 2:25 AM, austin obyrne wrote:
> On Monday, 15 November 2021 at 21:15:54 UTC, MM wrote:
>> On Monday, 15 November 2021 at 20:47:43 UTC, austin obyrne wrote:
>>
>>> The truth is I don't know any better. I know that my ada code
>>> can be shortened greatly but I have preferred all along to make
>>> my code as pedagogically orientated as possible.
>> That is gracious of you to admit.
>>
>> Your code is not "pedagogically orientated". It is verbose, error-prone,
>> hard-to read and unidiomatic.
>>> I despise slick minimalised coding.

Humm...

>> That is a pity, as it places a barrier between you and clear expression.
>> Programs are supposed to be read by humans - they are a form of
>> communication. Your contempt of slickness and brevity hurts your
>> work's acceptance.
>>> It doesn't sound as if you and your colleagues are very interested in my
>>> suggestions in which case I am happy to continue with the status quo.
>> Your "suggestions" seem to be to avoid any kind of need to engage
>> yourself intellectually, or indeed with any integrity. Don't project this
>> on others.
>>
[...]
> So be it.

Shit happens! You need to get motivated. I am trying to build a Salsa20
implementation in some free time. Leo is kind enough to help me. That's
a good thing. Very kind of him. MM is willing to help you... That is
also a good thing. :^)

Chris M. Thomasson

unread,
Nov 16, 2021, 3:16:50 PM11/16/21
to
On 11/16/2021 3:55 AM, austin obyrne wrote:
> On Tuesday, 16 November 2021 at 11:12:13 UTC, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 15/11/2021 21:15, MM wrote:
>>> Your "suggestions" seem to be to avoid any kind of need to engage
>>> yourself intellectually, or indeed with any integrity.
>> This may not be deliberate. I think AOB's belief in the utility of VC is
>> genuine, albeit misguided, but he has constructed such a ridiculously
>> Heath Robinson infrastructure for it that maintaining it must be
>> immensely wearying. He's made it ridiculously complicated even to change
>> something as simple as a key.
>>
>> If he has suffered a life-changing medical condition (heart attack, say,
>> or a stroke, both of which are conditions that constantly sap one's
>> energy), he may no longer have the stamina required for conducting
>> substantial development work no matter how much he might want to, and
>> for others to do the work for him might be the only route left open to him.
>>
>> If so, however, he's going entirely the wrong way about it.
>>> Don't project this
>>> on others.
>> Quite so.
[...]
>
> You and MM are incapable of assimilating the information
> I have copiously provided on my website and in daily posts.
>
> It would be impossible for me to communicate with you by means of sci.crypt posts.
>
[...]
You are communicating with them as you typed in that message. Btw,
Austin... Your code is hard to read. Its almost encrypted in and of
itself! I tried to take a look at it, and blood almost shot right out of
my eyes. I am not trying to be mean here. The ironic part is that it can
be streamlined. MM is willing to help you.

austin obyrne

unread,
Nov 16, 2021, 4:02:59 PM11/16/21
to
The real nub of the matter is something that neither MM or RH will believe but they wrongly think they are capable of it.* This is totally NEW mathematics and totally NEW cryptography. They can't even recognise the difference but instead think they are being cheated. I have bent over backwards try to simplify it for their comprehension and quite rightly they fail because its beyond their ken.

Note well: Even a professional mathematician of advanced level say degree level would require me to go over this invention several times step-by-step and only those who are keen on vector methods would take it in. it is VERY difficult stuff and I can't make it any easier.

The Ada code is irrelevant - that's just the box. I don't give a damn what my coding looks like to any Ada enthusiast.

The Ada coding has nothing to do with the comprehension of the two things that are inextricably dependent on each other - namely : my invention of vector factoring and vector cryptography - both kosher mathematics - not to be taken for granted and very difficult to understand if you are not already deeply into that topic.
MM and RH are not - I can tell from what they say.

There is no quick fix - hours of study are needed - MM and RH don't believe that but instead acuse me of being the cause of their dixcomfiture. One way or another they will have to study hard.

Best wishes,

AOB





































































MM

unread,
Nov 16, 2021, 4:12:06 PM11/16/21
to
On Tuesday, 16 November 2021 at 21:02:59 UTC, austin obyrne wrote:
> Note well: Even a professional mathematician of advanced level say
> degree level would require me to go over this invention several times
> step-by-step and only those who are keen on vector methods would
> take it in. it is VERY difficult stuff and I can't make it any easier.

Professional mathematicians in this channel have told you that you are
wrong, consistently, for YEARS.

M
--

Chris M. Thomasson

unread,
Nov 16, 2021, 4:33:48 PM11/16/21
to
[...]

Iirc, I heard something about you coming up with VC while working force
vectors. Something like this:

https://youtu.be/cXoIFjmMKfw

?

Richard Heathfield

unread,
Nov 16, 2021, 4:36:17 PM11/16/21
to
It's amusing how quickly his "explanations" go awry. Take the diagram on
the main page: http://aslec.uk/

Labels:

Bob's Line.
n, 2, 1, (0, 0, 0), -N->

Alice's Line
-2, -1, 0, 1, 2, n (wiggly arrow to Bob's n)

Others:
_
V0, Pn

Argument:
_
V1 oh wait... the very first symbol in the argument isn't defined, and
isn't anywhere to be found on the diagram.

_
V2 isn't defined either.

Cue AOB: "If you knew anything about mathematics you'd be able to guess
what I mean by these terms I haven't defined. Clearly you are very stupid."

austin obyrne

unread,
Nov 16, 2021, 5:00:01 PM11/16/21
to
The veracity of mathematics is sacrosanct to mathematicians, I know everything I have said over the years and it is all OK. I am particularly careful in my posts to this group to be extra watchful and correct. I have proved everything in my website notes but I fear that is beyond your comprehension also

Frantic face-saving like this won't solve your comprehension problem - You have a mountain to climb. It's not going to go away.
AOB

Chris M. Thomasson

unread,
Nov 16, 2021, 5:17:24 PM11/16/21
to
For some reason, it makes me want to think about it in 2d for
simplicity... Alice's line is on the x-axis, Bob's line is on the
y-axis, both starting at origin. So, Alice can encode, oh, say 66 on her
line.

Alice = (66, 0)

This goes to Bob's line by adding Alice's x to his y-axis:

Bob = (0, 66)

I know I am missing something.

If Bobs line starts at (-4, 6), then

Bob = (-4, 72)

Take the y and subtract = 72 - 6 = 66

Is this why he seems to focus on the y axis so much? I just don't know.

Shit.

austin obyrne

unread,
Nov 16, 2021, 5:33:04 PM11/16/21
to
It would be great to be able to postulate that all coplanar cryptography in the XY plane is breakable by numerical methods. You seem to heading that way. - have forgotten the word.
AOB

MM

unread,
Nov 16, 2021, 5:35:38 PM11/16/21
to
On Tuesday, 16 November 2021 at 22:00:01 UTC, austin obyrne wrote:
> The veracity of mathematics is sacrosanct to mathematicians,

That's mostly why the professional mathematicians wrote you off
a crank.

> I know everything I have said over the years and it is all OK.

Aaaand out comes the God delusion.

You said Shuttlepads was unbreakable, remember? Thats not the only
one.

Remember this: https://groups.google.com/g/sci.crypt/c/GmJrmCW-dTI/m/6mboBBcvBQAJ
It's a little inconvenient, having breaks published for unbreakable ciphers,
isn't it?

Are these all "OK" - unbreakable ciphers being broken?

M
--

MM

unread,
Nov 16, 2021, 5:36:56 PM11/16/21
to
On Tuesday, 16 November 2021 at 22:33:04 UTC, austin obyrne wrote:
> It would be great to be able to postulate that all coplanar cryptography in the XY plane is breakable by numerical methods. You seem to heading that way. - have forgotten the word.

You've also forgotten this: https://groups.google.com/g/sci.crypt/c/GmJrmCW-dTI/m/6mboBBcvBQAJ

M
--

Richard Heathfield

unread,
Nov 16, 2021, 5:58:49 PM11/16/21
to
On 16/11/2021 22:35, MM wrote:
> On Tuesday, 16 November 2021 at 22:00:01 UTC, austin obyrne wrote:
>> The veracity of mathematics is sacrosanct to mathematicians,
>
> That's mostly why the professional mathematicians wrote you off
> a crank.
>
>> I know everything I have said over the years and it is all OK.
>
> Aaaand out comes the God delusion.
>
> You said Shuttlepads was unbreakable, remember? Thats not the only
> one.
>
> Remember this: https://groups.google.com/g/sci.crypt/c/GmJrmCW-dTI/m/6mboBBcvBQAJ

And this, if you want to add it to your list - a salient warning of what
can happen if you re-use a key in Aslec, complete with a step by step
guide on How To Recover The Plaintext:

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.crypt/c/nZqCjXjtbFI/m/nbIAoFnmAAAJ

MM

unread,
Nov 16, 2021, 6:03:53 PM11/16/21
to
On Tuesday, 16 November 2021 at 21:02:59 UTC, austin obyrne wrote:
> The Ada code is irrelevant - that's just the box. I don't give a damn
> what my coding looks like to any Ada enthusiast.

To someone showing an interest in your cipher, the demonstration program
is surprisingly important. It's their first exposure to your cipher in action, and
if you disrespect them (as you do), they are unlikely to want to look much
further.

It's the same issue with your documentation. You make grandiose,
unproven claims like
"This cryptography uses ‘directed number-lines’ being used instead
of the universal number-line that may have arbitrary direction and
which has been used in cryptography ever since the very beginning
centuries ago. This means that the user of vector cryptography has
a vast domain of number-lines to draw from whereas traditional
cryptographers have had only one line ever that they were bound
to use repeatedly for every encryption/decryption of any number
of plaintext characters however great. Concealing their
transformations of plaintext into ciphertext is extremely difficult
and although it gives rise to some very fine algorithms that were
elegant and intelligent they did not really do the job of complete
obfuscation of the plaintext. The ciphers that they produced could
never really shake off the threat of statistical cryptanalysis."

That paragraph alone demonstrates that your mathematical
understanding of very basic number theory is sorely lacking.

> The Ada coding has nothing to do with the comprehension
> of the two things that are inextricably dependent on each
> other - namely : my invention of vector factoring and vector
> cryptography - both kosher mathematics - not to be taken
> for granted and very difficult to understand if you are not
> already deeply into that topic.

What's it like to never be wrong?

At least we agree that your Ada programs are rubbish.

You may have invented, or at least co-invented vector factoring,
and you have created a cipher out of it.

That cipher is weak. It may have been an interesting idea at
some point, but unless you produce someone with credibility
to prove otherwise, it's now a loser.

M
--

Richard Heathfield

unread,
Nov 16, 2021, 6:14:13 PM11/16/21
to
On 16/11/2021 23:03, MM wrote:
> You may have invented, or at least co-invented vector factoring

Nope. Prior art goes back 50 years.

William H. Lawton; Edward A. Sylvestre (1971). "Self modeling curve
resolution". Technometrics. 13 (3): 617–633.

Richard Heathfield

unread,
Nov 16, 2021, 6:29:20 PM11/16/21
to
On 16/11/2021 22:58, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 16/11/2021 22:35, MM wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 16 November 2021 at 22:00:01 UTC, austin obyrne wrote:
>>> The veracity of mathematics is sacrosanct to mathematicians,
>>
>> That's mostly why the professional mathematicians wrote you off
>> a crank.
>>
>>> I know everything I have said over the years and it is all OK.
>>
>> Aaaand out comes the God delusion.
>>
>> You said Shuttlepads was unbreakable, remember? Thats not the only
>> one.
>>
>> Remember this:
>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.crypt/c/GmJrmCW-dTI/m/6mboBBcvBQAJ
>
> And this, if you want to add it to your list - a salient warning of what
> can happen if you re-use a key in Aslec, complete with a step by step
> guide on How To Recover The Plaintext:
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.crypt/c/nZqCjXjtbFI/m/nbIAoFnmAAAJ

Oh, and then there's this too...

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.crypt/c/O1xLam7xToc/m/NfWJMHfrAQAJ

MM

unread,
Nov 16, 2021, 6:33:16 PM11/16/21
to
On Tuesday, 16 November 2021 at 23:14:13 UTC, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 16/11/2021 23:03, MM wrote:
> > You may have invented, or at least co-invented vector factoring
> Nope. Prior art goes back 50 years.

That's why I gave him "co-invented", but I missed "badly". Vector
cryptography is ALL his, however. No reputable mathematician has
gone anywhere near that, for longer than it took to discount it.

> William H. Lawton; Edward A. Sylvestre (1971). "Self modeling curve
> resolution". Technometrics. 13 (3): 617–633.

Yup. There are more. This one isn't quite prior art, but it's a competent
description: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/32600/whats-the-opposite-of-a-cross-product

M
--

Max

unread,
Nov 16, 2021, 6:35:51 PM11/16/21
to
On 17.11.21 00:03, MM wrote:
> On Tuesday, 16 November 2021 at 21:02:59 UTC, austin obyrne wrote:
[...]
>
> To someone showing an interest in your cipher, the demonstration program
> is surprisingly important. It's their first exposure to your cipher in action, and
> if you disrespect them (as you do), they are unlikely to want to look much
> further.
>
> It's the same issue with your documentation. You make grandiose,
> unproven claims

Amen.

[...]

David Eather

unread,
Nov 16, 2021, 10:29:41 PM11/16/21
to
Wow. How to insult the hands that want to help you.

David Eather

unread,
Nov 16, 2021, 10:35:57 PM11/16/21
to
Dude, MM sent you a rewrite of your code that greatly simplified it and
still produced the same output, so he did understand what you were doing
and your code can be simplified. And he proved this in the most
emphatic, irrefutable way possible.

Why not just unwind a bit and look at their help? Not always having to
be right is a much happier way to live.

MM

unread,
Nov 17, 2021, 3:14:41 AM11/17/21
to
On Wednesday, 17 November 2021 at 03:35:57 UTC, David Eather wrote:
> Dude, MM sent you a rewrite of your code that greatly simplified it and
> still produced the same output, so he did understand what you were doing
> and your code can be simplified. And he proved this in the most
> emphatic, irrefutable way possible.

AOB despises simplified, clear code.

> Why not just unwind a bit and look at their help? Not always having to
> be right is a much happier way to live.

If he didn't write it, he ain't interested.

Narcissism, methinks.

M
--

711 Spooky Mart

unread,
Nov 17, 2021, 6:34:29 AM11/17/21
to
On 11/16/21 9:29 PM, David Eather wrote:
> On 16/11/2021 9:55 pm, austin obyrne wrote:

[...]

>> You and MM are incapable of assimilating the information
>> I have copiously provided on my website and in daily posts.
>>
>> It would be impossible for me to communicate with you by means of
>> sci.crypt posts.
>>
>> Sorry,
>>
>> AOB
>>
>
> Wow. How to insult the hands that want to help you.

Oh, c'mon, nobody really wants to help him! You're entertaining
yourselves by focusing a magnifying glass on an ant. This dead horse has
been dug up and beaten and burned at the stake repeatedly.

If Austin is not willing to do a clean, readable, facile implementation
of his claimed cryptosystem then there is no cryptosystem. Thus all
suggestions and criticisms are for entertainment value.

--
──┏━━━━┓──┏━━┓───┏━━┓── ┌────────────────────────┐ ┌────────┐
──┗━━┓─┃──┗┓─┃───┗┓─┃── │ Spooky Mart [chan] 711 │ │ always │
─────┃─┃──┏┛─┗┓──┏┛─┗┓─ │ https://bitmessage.org │ │ open │
─────┗━┛──┗━━━┛──┗━━━┛─ └────────────────────────┘ └────────┘

David Eather

unread,
Nov 17, 2021, 7:41:30 AM11/17/21
to
Yep. I used to say he had (well probably had) narcissistic personality
disorder and the only reason he posted anything was so when someone
objected or asked why he could say he was smarter than everyone else.
Hence more reasonable, simplified code is a negative (for him) because
more people would understand it and not need to go to him for explanation.

But the main point I was making was that you did in fact understand his
code (even if you didn't agree it was unbreakable)

David Eather

unread,
Nov 19, 2021, 3:09:23 AM11/19/21
to
Some perspective: I doubt AOB even scans my posts in the most cursory
way, since he calls me a liar and a cheat.

MM

unread,
Nov 19, 2021, 6:03:17 AM11/19/21
to
On Friday, 19 November 2021 at 08:09:23 UTC, David Eather wrote:
> Some perspective: I doubt AOB even scans my posts in the most cursory
> way, since he calls me a liar and a cheat.

Agreed. If you ask multiple questions, you most likely get an answer to
only the first, if any.

I sometimes think he goes back and reads them later, as I have seen
later posts that indicate this.

His comprehension skills are terrible, though, as he mischaracterises
other's words, and he hangs onto his first (mis)impressions very rigidly.

M
--

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages