-4
$\begingroup$

There is a major body of evidence of moderators hiding uncomfortable truths from the public view.

How can we trust that a state level actor is not behind this. How can one be sure that there is justice in the end.

Take a cryptographer as an example of a member of a larger (assumed to be corrupt) system. How it is ensured/made possible for him/her to be working on schemes that gain funding (to keep him/her busy) as opposed to work with schemes which appear the most promising first?

$\endgroup$
6
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ So, you want people to only work on things that get funding, instead of working on things that are promising? That's pretty much the opposite of what most people would consider a good outcome for research. $\endgroup$ – Maeher Nov 28 '20 at 18:53
  • $\begingroup$ and yet it keeps happening over and over again $\endgroup$ – cryptosir Nov 28 '20 at 19:05
  • $\begingroup$ So, everything is fine then. ( From your point of view) $\endgroup$ – Maeher Nov 28 '20 at 19:06
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ How to combat complot theories from trolls that continuously create new accounts while being logged on from Tor is currently a bigger concern. $\endgroup$ – Maarten Bodewes Nov 28 '20 at 20:23
  • $\begingroup$ Speaking of malicious state-level actors, can we be sure that you are not one of them? $\endgroup$ – Patriot Dec 6 '20 at 22:17
  • $\begingroup$ We cannot establish much on any user here. So we're left with judging based on actions and posts, which actually suites me fine. Of course, if new accounts are created all the time we're a bit stuck. But don't worry, the delete button is way, way faster than account creation. $\endgroup$ – Maarten Bodewes Dec 11 '20 at 15:21
9
$\begingroup$

I confirm that ≥4 posts mentioning the name of a signature scheme of a new eponymous cryptocurrency have been closed or deleted by moderators in the [2020-11-25, 2020-11-28] period (update: another on 2020-12-02). They were from different new users with no previous activity. That was direct questions, answer minutes after, and answers of dubious relevance to a different question.

Problem is, that signature scheme is only documented in a whitepaper on github, notable for its extensive use of ASCII art, vocabulary of crypto, and some simple math, but lacking a description allowing a rational discussion on the signature scheme. Beyond this are executables without description.

Please upvote this answer only if you think the above fits the criteria for removal from crypto-SE.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You had me at ASCII art - where can I get this CTF challenge? :-) $\endgroup$ – cisnjxqu Nov 28 '20 at 18:14
  • $\begingroup$ @cisnjxqu: removed ASCII art, I don't want to promote the thing, and being artistic is not a criteria for removal :-) As for using it as a CTF, nope, there's nothing falsifiable. $\endgroup$ – fgrieu Nov 28 '20 at 19:24

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .