<div dir="ltr">On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Perry E. Metzger <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:perry@piermont.com" target="_blank">perry@piermont.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">

<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34)">The attraction of methods that use nothing but a handful of</span><br>

</div>
transistors is that they can be fabricated on chip and thus have<br>
nearly zero marginal cost. The huge disadvantage is that if your<br>
opponent can convince chip manufacturers to introduce small changes<br>
into their design, you're in trouble.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>It seems like Intel's approach of using thermal noise is fairly sound. Is there any reason why it isn't more widely adopted? Patents?</div>

<div><br></div><div><a href="http://electronicdesign.com/learning-resources/understanding-intels-ivy-bridge-random-number-generator">http://electronicdesign.com/learning-resources/understanding-intels-ivy-bridge-random-number-generator</a> </div>

</div><div><br></div>-- <br>Tony Arcieri<br>
</div></div>