Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by cryptonector 202 days ago
Link?
2 comments

There’s also a more approachable set of slides on the topic at https://cr.yp.to/talks/2025.11.14/slides-djb-20251114-safecu...
What do you think of those slides?
I didn’t see anything “batshit” in either the paper or the slides.
Say more. What do you think of his argument? I paraphrased it downthread. Do you think I did so accurately? If not: what did I get wrong?
At least in terms of the Bada55 paper, I think he writes in a fairly jocular style that sounds unprofessional unless you read his citations as well. You seem to object to his occasional jocularity and take it as prima facie evidence of him being “batshit”. Given that you are well known for a jocular writing style, perhaps you should extend some grace.

The slides seem like a pretty nice summary of the 2015-era SafeCurves work, which you acknowledge elsewhere on this site (this thread? They all blend together) was based on good engineering.

I tried a couple searches and I forget which calculator-speak version of "BADASS" Bernstein actually used, but the concept of the paper† is that all the NUMS-style curves are suspect because you can make combinations of mathematical constants say whatever you want them to say (in combination), and so instead you should pick curve constants based purely on engineering excellence, which nobody could ever disagree about or (looks around the room) start huge conspiracy theories over.

as I remember it