Void in complexity

🥹

[azerty @kir1llllll]

Enfin une vidéo pour nous remonter un peu le moral en ces temps moroses, ça fait du bien ...
De rien .... Merci

[𝐌𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐝𝐢𝐞𝐬 & 𝐌𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 ✨ @ninhnguynt22334]

Jethro Tull performing “Bourée” for French Television in 1969 “Bourée” is an instrumental and a flute-based adaptation of Johann Sebastian Bach’s “Bourrée”. The Bach version was written for lute, and is his fifth movement of the Suite in E minor for Lute. Also known as “Aufs Lautenwercke” (works for the Lute), Bach wrote the piece in the early 1700s. In an interview, Ian Anderson explained why he decided to adapt the Bach composition. He said: “I got to the point where I was playing the flute every night on stage in the early part of ‘68, and so by the end of the year, I was casting around for an instrumental piece as a successor to the Roland Kirk piece, ‘Serenade to a Cuckoo,’ which I’d been playing most of 1968. I wanted something that had a syncopated jazzy feel, but a melody that wasn’t associated with the jazz world or the blues world. And ‘Bourée’ was a little bit of music that came to me through the floorboards of my bedsitter in London, because there was a media student in the room below who kept playing over and over again this refrain of the Bach tune “Bourée.” He played it on classical guitar, but he only ever got the one bit, he never progressed beyond that basic thing. So I kept hearing that over and over and over and over again, and decided that I would try to use that little tune some way as a starting point for an instrumental piece. And Martin Barre, who literally at that point in January ‘69 was just kind of auditioning to join the band, said, ‘Oh, I know that. I think I’ve got the sheet music somewhere for Bach’s ‘Bourée.’’ So it was something we could fairly readily embark upon as a variation on a classical piece of music.”

[John H. Boyer @johnhboyer]

Happy to announce I built a Greek/English reader site with all the surviving plays of Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, & Aristophanes.
Multiple translations for each play; click to parse & define for any Greek word; full Greek & English search.
https://t.co/8RevjZwyLl

[Christian Condebaz @Condebaz]

"La lourdeur les rend infirmes..."

[Histoire & Odyssée @HistoireOdyssee]

Rare image d’un cerf blanc photographié dans le Devon, en Angleterre.

Probablement albinos, un phénomène particulièrement rare chez le cerf élaphe. Il évoque le légendaire « White Hart », animal chargé de symboles et notamment emblème personnel du roi Richard II d’Angleterre.

On retrouve cette figure sur les enseignes de nombreuses auberges et pubs anglais !

📷Brian Johnston

[diva @divaagurlxw]

This is how calculus should’ve been taught from day one

[Void in complexity @complexity_void]

@NicoFournon Chanceux! Bonne lecture!

[Samson Mow @Excellion]

Longer, more detailed explanation:

ECDSA and Schnorr on secp256k1 only work while ECDLP (the elliptic-curve discrete logarithm problem: recovering secret d from public key Q = dP) is hard. If you can recover d you can forge spends. That is Cryptomania (the world where public-key encryption and key agreement exist).

Bitcoin does not need that. People get this wrong all the time. The chain is public. Nothing is encrypted to a recipient. Bitcoin needs signatures so only the key holder can spend. As @adam3us explained in plain terms: “Bitcoin doesn’t use encryption, rather it uses signature schemes.” That is why “encrypted Bitcoin” pitches cause so much confusion and are misleading.

Signatures exist in Minicrypt (the world where one-way functions exist, but public-key encryption does not). Rompel showed in 1990 you can build them from one-way functions alone. The scheme built for this is SHRINCS, from @blksresearch and @n1ckler. It is hash-based, so it does not care about ECDLP, lattices, or any other algebraic assumption. Blockstream already has it running on @Liquid_BTC via Simplicity, and there is a draft BIP for Bitcoin. Public keys can stay ~32 bytes, so addresses do not have to change. Signatures do. Schnorr is 64 bytes. SHRINCS stateful signatures start around a few hundred bytes if the wallet tracks used keys. The stateless fallback is a few KB.

Larger sigs are fine because we already have a ton of scaling tech. Lightning, Liquid, Ark, etc. Most activity does not need to hit L1. If we needed to change signatures, this would also probably be a good time to add covenants.

So on L1, transactions get heavier and fewer of them fit into a block. Signing is a little slower. Stateful schemes need careful backups. @Blockstream Research did the work so Bitcoin has a path that does not depend on Cryptomania. ECDLP falling retires ECDSA and Schnorr. It does not retire Bitcoin.

[🦋 🌷Love Music 🎶 & Dance 💃🏻🕺🏻 @Tiana_Celine_23]

Listen to Paco de Lucía – a true masterpiece, the finest guitar playing in history!!!

[Alex Fairfax @Alex_Fairfax06]

Prince was asked to do a solo on a cover of While My Guitar Gently Weeps and he showed up to the rehearsal and barely played anything. Didn’t have any solo ready at all and didn’t play one. They asked what he was going to play and he just said “Don’t worry about it.”

Then, on the night of the performance he just looms out of the shadows and plays this. The way he pivots off that F# root note into Dorian mode is so good. Massively underrated guitarist.

[semillabtc @semillabtc]

Uno de los incentivos de tener un nodo es mantener tu privacidad, evitando ceder tu historial de transacciones y saldo a servidores de terceros.

También es importante mantener esa conexión, estés donde estés, sin complicarlo mucho. Por eso los usuarios usan Tor. 🧵

[Jonas Nick @n1ckler]

Thanks for the careful review. This is the kind of discussion necessary for making progress on post-quantum Bitcoin.

There's a lot here I agree with, though I come to a different conclusion. I agree that hash-based signatures are a good fit for Bitcoin, for the reasons the review gives. Reducing block space usage is indeed a primary design goal of SHRINCS, and it comes at a cost. The stateful path's safety depends on wallet infrastructure that the protocol does not prescribe and that still needs standards.

I also agree that if block space stays cheap, the stateful path adds complexity for little benefit. But that seems unlikely, since today's fees reflect 64-byte signatures, and stateless SHRINCS signatures are about 90 times larger. High fees matter for a store of value too, because holders eventually need to spend, and we should aim for Bitcoin to remain usable by people who don't hold large amounts.

Congestion and high fees are a strong argument for minimizing signature size, and stateful signatures are up to about 10 times smaller than stateless ones. Wallets can start with stateless signing and enable stateful signing for their existing keys later, without another soft fork. A block-size increase can't fully solve this. Every node has to download and validate every block, so blocks can't grow arbitrarily large.

The review suggests that the stateful path lets the SHRINCS authors say the block-size concern has been addressed. The intent is rather that SHRINCS doesn't depend on a block-size increase, so that question can be discussed separately without holding up post-quantum signatures.

On custody, I agree that it's unreasonable to expect replicas to share stateful signing slots safely. Some high-availability setups can still use the stateful path, for example one where a designated signer signs statefully while the replicas sign only statelessly, so failover costs larger signatures but requires no coordination of state. In practice, custodians may simply sign statelessly.

The review describes stateful signing as an optimization, which fits better than the BIP's "primary path" wording. It also made me realize that calling the stateless path a "fallback" is misleading, and we're considering changing the terminology in the BIP.

The review proposes considering a stateless-only scheme with a larger block size. Modified algorithms could reduce stateless signatures to roughly 4,000 bytes, about 60 times the size of a Schnorr signature instead of 90. Would that be worth departing from the SLH-DSA algorithms?

[Tolkien Society @TolkienSociety]

On 21 September 1937: J.R.R. Tolkien's The Hobbit was published.

The book tells of a hobbit, Bilbo Baggins, and his journey with thirteen dwarves to recover their treasure from a dragon, Smaug. It's sold over 100 million copies and is one of the best-selling books of all time.

[Andrew Orlowski @AndrewOrlowski]

An absolutely lethal observation from @CarissaVeliz on Effective Altruists.

[Tolkien Society @TolkienSociety]

On 2 September 1973 J.R.R. Tolkien died aged 81. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings is the best-selling book of the 20th Century, and is joined by seminal works The Hobbit and The Silmarillion.

He may have died 53 years ago but his influence and legacy lives on in us all. Namárië.

[Void in complexity @complexity_void]

@SchopenhauerNow The Hobbit

[F111Driver @F111Driver]

Well that’s enough
about the FLYBY🫣🫗
#SpitfireSunday 🔥🔥
📹 https://t.co/zGKIGEUFyf

[Cultivated Soul @CultivatedBooks]

48 Great Short Classics

1. Candide – Voltaire
2. Northanger Abbey – Jane Austen
3. A Christmas Carol – Charles Dickens
4. Fathers and Sons – Ivan Turgenev
5. Notes from Underground – Fyodor Dostoevsky
6. Daisy Miller – Henry James
7. The Death of Ivan Ilyich – Leo Tolstoy
8. Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde – Robert Louis Stevenson
9. Captains Courageous – Rudyard Kipling
10. Heart of Darkness – Joseph Conrad
11. Ethan Frome – Edith Wharton
12. Death in Venice – Thomas Mann
13. O Pioneers! – Willa Cather
14. The Metamorphosis – Franz Kafka
15. The Great Gatsby – F. Scott Fitzgerald
16. Of Mice and Men – John Steinbeck
17. The Stranger – Albert Camus
18. Out of the Silent Planet – C. S. Lewis
19. The Abolition of Man – C. S. Lewis
20. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe – C. S. Lewis
21. Animal Farm – George Orwell
22. Wise Blood – Flannery O’Connor
23. The Old Man and the Sea – Ernest Hemingway
24. One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich – Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
25. A Room of One’s Own – Virginia Woolf
26. Troilus and Criseyde – Geoffrey Chaucer
27. Lord of the Flies – William Golding
28. Silas Marner – George Eliot
29. Where Angels Fear to Tread – E. M. Forster
30. Cranford – Elizabeth Gaskell
31. The Hound of the Baskervilles – Arthur Conan Doyle
32. And Then There Were None – Agatha Christie
33. The Pearl – John Steinbeck
34. The Red Pony – John Steinbeck
35. Burning Bright – John Steinbeck
36. The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin
37. The Europeans – Henry James
38. We Have Always Lived in the Castle – Shirley Jackson
39. Billy Budd – Herman Melville
40. Bartleby, the Scrivener – Herman Melville
41. Fahrenheit 451 – Ray Bradbury
42. The Souls of Black Folk – W. E. B. Du Bois
43. Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave
44. Night – Elie Wiesel
45. Man’s Search for Meaning – Viktor E. Frankl
46. The Epic of Gilgamesh
47. Poor Folk – Fyodor Dostoevsky
48. White Nights – Fyodor Dostoevsky

tolle lege

[Kevin Loaec 🧙‍♂️🐟 @KLoaec]

This is a tricky question.
In a normal case, the device entropy is BETTER than you picking 23 words from that box.
In a normal case, you can trust the device to use the actual words you input (that wasn't broken on CC, but could be!)

For your specific question, in a normal case, mixing a trash entropy with good entropy results in BETTER entropy, not lower. This is because they are xored together, you do not replace part of one with the other, you just add "more shuffling" even if it's really trash like 1 bit, it's still one more shuffle.

So in a normal case, you don't need any external entropy. Unless you can "perfectly" shuffle the box of words (you can't), your 24 words will be technically a little lower than pure RNG from the device.
The result for quality is:
Best: Device + external entropy
Second best: Device only (of a non broken device!)
Third best: External entropy only.

[Mayor Zohran Kwame Mamdani @NYCMayor]

Benjamin Netanyahu is a war criminal.