[Cryptography] who cares about actual randomness?

ianG iang at iang.org
Thu Feb 6 02:49:43 EST 2014

On 6/02/14 08:01 AM, grarpamp wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 3:35 PM, John Denker <jsd at av8n.com> wrote:
>> safeguards such as clear plastic boxes.
>>   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7M3MSmooeM
> Audits, randomness and strict process are all important and needed
> of course, some of us probably work in gaming... yet the end result
> of those efforts are more interesting...
> http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=powerball+winner
>> Can you convince these people to trust a PRNG instead?
> The employess, very likely. The auditors, less likely. Peer
> and public pressure probably drives integrity in this arena
> more than 'these people', perhaps in govt, would on their own.

The auditors are easily convinced.  They will take academic input, best
practices, peer pressure as much as the public.  They'll also take the
money, and in better spirit than any mere employee.  No lack of
precedent in this, have a look at recent PKI efforts or the ongoing
repeat saga of the 2007 financial crisis.

The public are convinced by PR and the insider / beneficiaries, as is
always.  Most people in most democracies believe democracy to be fair,
in some sense or other, but only in a few places do they actually check.
 C.f., Switzerland.

For an interesting review of how to corrupt the dropping ball technique,
there is a novel called The Winner by Baldacci.  The attack thesis is
based on a real case, if memory serves.  Anything can be corrupted, but
the more subtle thesis is that the lotteries are already corrupted, just
not by whom one expects.


More information about the cryptography mailing list