From Newsgroup: sci.crypt

On Thu, 25 Sep 2025 05:37:26 -0000 (UTC)
Battosai <cuadratica@protonmail.com> wrote:

This implementation appears to be security theater rather than cryptographically sound design.

Really? An anonymous cartoon character wants to talk about theater?

How ironic.

I am not moved to expend any energy refuting this cartoon's false analysis. If any real human with a real public corpus of work wants to ask about my scripts then I would be willing to address such real people provided they are free of both deceit and hidden motives.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.crypt

Byrl Raze Buckbriar <news0@octade.net> wrote:

On Thu, 25 Sep 2025 05:37:26 -0000 (UTC)
Battosai <cuadratica@protonmail.com> wrote:

This implementation appears to be security theater rather than
cryptographically sound design.

Really? An anonymous cartoon character wants to talk about theater?

How ironic.

I am not moved to expend any energy refuting this cartoon's false
analysis. If any real human with a real public corpus of work wants
to ask about my scripts then I would be willing to address such real
people provided they are free of both deceit and hidden motives.

The effort of proof falls upon those making grandiose claims. You are apparently claiming your system provides better randomness than other conventional methods. This, despite the fact that in 99.9% of the
cases, every instance of "I have a better widget" as it regards
cryptography or randomness is snake-oil.

Therefore the burden is upon you to show that your claims have merit.
The analysis by the nik Battosai is statistically more likely to be
100% correct than not in this instance.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2