pull down to refresh
Wow cold hard reality check ✔️
Even if the feds didn't build it, they just need to wait for adoption knowing that human error and public ledgers is all they need lol
Justin is 100% right that privacy isn't tools: it is a process and thus takes effort. The best privacy you can get is by not digitizing and broadcasting your secrets. And if you must: by not using software you didn't write and by not using hardware you didn't make. And if you cannot do that, work through the assumptions and at least understand every line of source code on your hot path.
You're still defeatist though. No matter what you believe the state of compromise of the compute space is, the question will always remain: what are you going to do about it?
they just need to wait for adoption
Not really, because NatSec "sets" the standards. There's a 2025/2026 series of posts on Bernstein's blog about an alleged current occurrence of what Justin points to, showing that there's no need to "wait for adoption":
- NSA and IETF
- NSA and IETF II
- NSA and IETF III
- NSA and IETF IV
- NSA and IETF V
- NSA and IETF VI
- NSA and IETF VII
Note that these posts aren't really written for normie consumption - they're more a reflection of raw frustration - but the bottom line question here is: why, if X25519+ML-KEM is provably more secure than the latter on its own, are people[1] lobbying for publication and adoption of the less secure option?
The only use-case other than "CNSA2 requires this" that I saw mentioned, was an example offered where an unnamed individual allegedly said that dropping ECDH and doing pure ML-KEM is good for an unspecified HFT algo, see post VII.
It doesn't even matter if Bernstein is right or wrong about this. What matters is that with this information being available, how are you going to judge its validity, and how are you going to defend yourself? Are you capable of selecting the ciphersuites used by your TLS interactions on the interwebz, anon? If not, are you just gonna sit there? Or are you going to learn?
Bernstein implies these people are spooks, but let's give everyone the benefit of the doubt and just treat everyone, including you and yours truly, as a potential spook. No shortcuts. ↩
Amazing comment 👏 thank you brev
I guess I can't stop being killed if a bus runs me over, but I can learn to cross the road 🎤🫳 do you like that one 🤣🤣🤣
This is why I SN, to get this type of conversation
I know you're right and unless you're smelting your own silicone chips you have to assume everything is backdoored
You're just being a realist, but I've been called a privacy nihilist, so...
"If you're looking for the truth look at the guy everyone is mad at"
Reality is privacy as a practice, yet everyone wants to bandwagon jump and virtue signal about privacy solutions... Silent payments? If you think you need those you're exactly the kind of person who will dox your stack during consolidation? Tor? Enjoy your IC sybil'd honeypot. VPN companies? also owned by the IC. Ecash? Nice anon-set you got there dummy.
Where's all the good old fashion virtue signaling about war driving like in the early 2000s? At least then people did things.
Now people just want to be seen LARPing. The loudest privacy advocates are wholly unserious, especially in Bitcoin circles, the irony being lost on most Bitcoiners that it is an NSA-built public ledger explicitly to track flows extrajudicially across borders constraint and without the compliance of hostile international banks that don't serve NatSec interests.
Not to mention, all your systems are completely backdoored at the hardware level and down into the RNG if the state is your threat scenario. #1008583