• FooBarrington@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    No, I’m arguing that the inputs aren’t knowable to the required degree in the general case, which defines their entropy, and that entropy isn’t mathematically lost, it’s improved through deterministic calculations.

    • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The same was thought about previous iterations on random number generators. The first I am aware of used an extremely precise time stamp, and ran the calculations on that. On the assumption that no one could possibly know the exact timestamp used. That was obviously untrue, which can be verified by the fact that such systems have been broken before.

      Just because you can’t conceive of a way to know the values, does not make them unknowable. It just makes it improbable to happen.

      And again, I’m not saying the random numbers we can produce now are currently breakable. But that doesn’t mean that a decade from now, or even a century, they will remain unbroken.

      • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Say I’m restarting my phone, and it uses details like temperature fluctuations in CPU sensors as entropy. How would you know all the required values? Since I’m holding the phone in my hand, the temperature of my hand (and consequently body temperature) are relevant, not to mention the air around my phone. How would you find those values at the exact time the sensors are read?

        • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You honestly think those values aren’t possible to estimate within a range then brute force?

          That’s like asking “say I hit a button at a very specific time, how would you find that exact time?”