Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Yes, seriously. I don't know him. That is why I asked you for his particulars. I AM doing my DD, I just do it systematically. As pointed out on the board prior to this time, IHUB is opinion filled, so it is biased, by definition, concerning itself. If Dr. Carlson is considered biased about himself and his work, then IHUB must be considered the same in this case. The standard set here was that the person put forth as an expert must be and accepted expert from an independent third party, or that the person cited must show verifiable expertise. One cannot verify the expertise of an anonymous "person" nor can potential bias be assessed without knowing exactly who that "person" is.
In addition, an anonymous username can be used by many people. How are we to prove that the name is used by a single person?
So, under the same requirements set for experts giving opinions for the company, the same proof must be required for persons giving opinions in the other direction, or even in neutral matters. Until such proof is given, and verified, this person must be discounted as either not having been proven an expert or as potentially biased.
The truth never sucks, BTW. That is why there is never any counter math presented.
Sorry, not familiar with BigBake1 and who s/he is. What is the name and how can we verify their credentials? Are they possibly biased? How can we tell without knowing exactly who they are?
After all, have to apply the same standards to everyone...
Here are the steps of a revolutionary product:
1. "You can't do that!"
2. "Wow, you did that!"
3. "We leave it as a trivial exercise to the reader to prove that ..."
Revolutionary ideas take years for the conventional thinkers to understand and accept. Relativity took three decades. Computers took several decades, as well. Much of this is educating people to understand, and then accept, the new technology.
This is what defines a visionary. And CipherLoc is a visionary product.
I know this will shock people, but I agree with the fact that CipherLoc would not have stopped this type of hack. But then again, a saw would not have stopped it either. Once must use the right tool for the job to get the right results. That does NOT mean CipherLoc is useless, it just means that it is not meant to stop this type of attack.
CipherLoc is an encryption technology. It is not a personal, physical, or social engineering solution. Used in the right setting and for the right job, CipherLoc is exceptional.
Once again, NOT what I said. What you are saying is that ALL investors are only interested in short term gains and do not have the vision to ride out fluctuations. THAT is new to me.
IMO, that is wrong. No one can know the motivations and feelings of another for sure. This is an alternative explanation that is quite plausable.
For example, I am not worried.
Nope, not sad at all if you know the tech and are in for the long run. Some investors do not flip as fast as they can and scrap for small profits.
I suppose that this refers to the rise in price today?
Wow, an admission that there WAS a sale.
So the FACT is that the tech works and there is no counter math? Given that the product is being developed, what is being done behind the scenes to get it right before sales? And what are companies saying to NSCT? (sorry, CLOC). Of course, one could find out if they made a call.
Actually, posters that agree with management and management, itself, are held to a much higher standard than posters who disagree with management. Allegations and innuendo concerning management and positive posters are routinely accepted as fact. Proof presented are ignored along with mocking and further innuendo. No source or proof that is associated with the technology is accepted, although anything negative, even if biased under the same test, is shouted from the housetops as proof.
The proof is there. The proof has been presented. No counter proof presented. Still waiting for the counter math...
Too Sad! Even with a patent people will infringe. Nothing "keeps" someone from using it. It only provides penalties for doing so. Again, very misunderstood.
Laughing at the success of Coke is denying that what they do works. Mocking it does not mean it is not right. Deflecting through derision is a sign of a weak argument.
But again, this is a diversion. Facts, and math, speak. I have presented valid, strong examples. Still waiting for the counter math. Still waiting for counter examples.
It DOES continue to get funnier. mischaracterizing the law IS indeed common. I talk to MANY patent lawyers. They agree, and NOT on the position stated here. Patents are NOT the only protection that works. I will put up Coke against any such argument. I will put Cadence up against any such argument. Waiting for counter examples. Still waiting for counter math. Oh, that is right, they do not exist.
Not so, any of the ways stated. First of all, the facts remain the same. But, copyrights are enforceable over code that has changes, but substantially does the same function. Check out Cadence and its suit against competitors. It put them out of business. Sounds like protection to me.
Trade secrets no good? Ask Coca Cola. There are also a host of other companies. And, since this also can involve hardware, trade secrets apply here.
Patents are the only way to protect things? Hogwash. Ask any competent patent lawyer.
I reiterate - facts did not change. Just trying to stir up old, discredited diversions. Where's the counter math?
Nuff said.
Not hard to understand that different audience, different setting, different talk. That is all.
BTW - what if the company chooses NOT to patent? Can't they effectively do trade secret? What about copyright?
Well, according to the sources on the board, everyone at GAWK is compromised. Selective belief is an option, but not logical.
Not saying that, just applying the same standards applied here to NSCT filings.
So, you are saying filings can be trusted? If so, you have to accept ALL of the NSCT filings.
There was plenty of information packed into them. Of course, one needs to listen to hear it.
Can't believe GAWK, biased!
Someone got a heck of a deal! Lucky person to pick it up so cheap! The glass is definitely half full. all depends on your point of view.
So is the claim that FINRA is rejecting it.
Funny - how many know Dr. Carlson before posting about him, his background, his knowledge, his history, and his motives. IMO the same applies to both...
Well, this is factually wrong. it has indeed been presented many times. References to the math have been presented, especially in the patent apps and in the background dissertation materials that posters have found. The math is in them, but I believe that the comment was that the source was 'biased.' Ignoring the math and the sources from which it comes does not make it any less right.
We can debate math all day long. Glad to do that. Math is provable.
But, still waiting for the counter math. None has been presented because the math supports and proves the product. Dr. Carlson's math is right. It is also novel and elegant. Refusing to acknowledge the mountain in front of you does not mean it does not exist.
The math is everything! That is how it works! Sorry that some do not understand that. The math referred to has been analyzed many times and is based on FALSE (or at least non-provable) premises. Therefore, it is discounted.
Still waiting on the counter math. Oh, that's right, there is NONE. Dr. Carlson wins.
Still waiting for the proof! No counter math, no proof, just innuendo, supposition, and baseless conclusions.
Wheres the counter math?
Sorry, can't use Entrust. They are selling a competing product, so they are biased. After all, what do you expect them to say? They have to say this to protect their sales and business? Have to use the same rules for Entrust and you use on CipherLoc. So, we can discount this one...
We both know that that is NOT what I am saying. OTPs have been around since 1913. Are you saying they are irrelevant? Because if that is the case then further discussion is necessary due to a lack of understanding of the math of cryptography. Remember that this is an ENGINE, not a cipher. BIG difference.
So, since the principles are the same, in general, and the application is novel, that is like saying that someone has already invented a car, so no new types of cars or styles are possible.
Feigning surprise is just a way to try and deflect the real point and trying to derail the discussion onto a side track. Still waiting for the counter math. I gave up on crickets, I have been waiting so long that they went extinct.
Not so. You linked to the patent app. What was asked for was verification of the algorithms. They are located in those texts. Of course, one has to understand them, first. All anyone has to do to find out about the algorithm is lift a phone and "ring, ring." If I did not check the sources first, then I WOULD get an F. But, I forgot, calling someone who knows about the tech is considered biased. That is like saying (assuming Einstein was still alive) that using his sources on relativity were out of bounds because they are biased.
BTW, the first test of viability is whether or not the math violates known, proven math. That requires checking the state of the art. Given that this applies Shannon Theory and Information Theory, you have to start there.
So, let's recap:
1. No one knows the algorithm and it is unpublished. Wrong. The link to the expired patent app was put up by SB. That is clearly a false assertion.
2. No proof. Wrong. Read the math, then grok it. Dr. Carlson did. So that is also clearly false.
3. No counter math has been presented. Now that IS true. Still waiting. Where's the counter proof?
Where? See post #8805, posted earlier this week. The math is there. Ignoring the post and the references does not make it any less valid. The math stands on its own. If not valid counter math is noted, then it MUST be assumed that the math presented is correct and the discussion closed until a refuting proof is presented. This is the way all math proofs are presented and verified.
BTW, even quantum computing is vulnerable to a man-in-the-middle attack. CipherLoc is NOT vulnerable to eavesdropping, as is suggested. The math proves it - check out Shannon's work on entropy and its relationship to unicity distance. It is in the references from #8805.
I have another question: What proves that Dr. Carlson is not an expert, if not THE expert in this field? School snobbery is NOT a valid disclaimer. EBay was started by people out of the U of Idaho. And the U of Idaho is one of the ORIGINAL Seven Centers of Excellence for the NSA, along with schools like Purdue. The U of Illinois at Urbana (one of the world's foremost engineering schools, and a school that Dr. Carlson graduated from) was also once a 3rd rate school until one of the "rejects" discovered micro cracks in rails. Japan was once a defeated country before it ruled the world in microelectronics. And Microsoft was started by a bunch of people who could not get a job at IBM.
Of course, no mathematical refutation has been presented, only innuendo and unfounded claims. Attempts have been made to distract from the real issue. Making a claim requires proof. My proof is in #8805. Math is NOT biased. Still waiting for the "proof" that disproves the approach.
To quote (loosely) a star of the 1980's: "Where's the math?"
Sorry, your math is wrong. If it was so much better, it should have out shined AES DECADES ago. This is ducking the question presented. Still waiting for math even related to proving the point put forth. But, then again, if the math was there, it would have been presented...
Rapidly being developed? Forty years? Still under development (from the ad listed). It also requires special hardware. Not good in today's economy. Look at those fans! Got to run REALLY hot. If you look on the cover it uses a four photon entanglement for quantum locking. Has nothing to do with crypto, only with randomization and q states for verification. This is part of what Maurer suggested in 1992 and is part of the concept of everlasting security, which, coincidentally, is built into CipherLoc. Funny, CipherLoc runs now on regular machines. Using special hardware only makes CipherLoc better. But CipherLoc can run on ANY computer. Wonder what the quantum equipment costs? BTW, you will have to hook up the quantum generator up to a regular computer to make it work.
That still deflects from the point that CipherLoc still works on quantum computers and quantum crypto does NOT work on regular computers. Which is more flexible?
Still waiting on the math to disprove it... Still waiting on quantum...
One of these days, people will understand that quantum is TYPE of computer. Still just a computer. The fact that it is quantum makes it faster, but does not change computing theory or the math behind it. Adding quantum to something does not mysteriously and suddenly change things to "better." BGW, putting CipherLoc on a quantum computer makes it more efficient and allows the block size to be cut down, therefore, making it stronger. But, it would do that on ANY faster computer.
The biggest problem with quantum computers, a 40+ year old technology, is that the hardware is still primitive, uses a lot of power, and is nearly impossible to get hold of unless you are a huge company, a government, or an academic institution.
Quantum encryption companies make a lot of claims, and they should be held to the same standard of bias applied to CipherLoc.
STILL waiting for the counter math about encryption.
That is a deflection. I have presented math that verifies the methodology from unbiased, 3rd party sources. Are you saying no such counter math to prove it does not work does not exist?
As to the math you show, that has already been answered. Go back and look. Flawed assumptions make for flawed results.
All innuendo. BTW, Symmantic is biased, they are in the business of selling security (this is the standard set by those presenting this "evidence"). So it does not count. Where is the math? I have presented academic papers and math. Where is the counter math?
What? No math counter arguments. The arguments that are listed are irrelevant to the math. References listed earlier verify the math. They do not list CipherLoc by name, but the math is there.
Just for the record, Shannon said that unhackable DOES exist (One Time Pad) in his 1947 paper already listed. Maurer gave the strength in his paper. The strength of the ciphers used (think FIPS 140-2, NIST) is listed in Schneier. The fact that it is AT LEAST that strong, comes from the Maurer Paper. I seem to remember that quantum was touted as "unhackable" when it was convenient.
Well, then, the verification is there. And, it is from trusted third parties with NO stake in things. Still waiting for the counter MATH arguments.
Shannon, "Communication Theory of Secrecy," 1947, Schneier, "Applied Cryptography," 2000, Maurer, et al, "The Importance of Being First," 1990, and a host of others. Just those 3 are more than 1500 pages. BTW, that is math. Not "it doesn't work."
References and REAL math disproving it? And let's not have references from biased people trying to push their cryptosystems.
Still waiting for the math that "disproves" it. Opinion is not fact or proof. Math has no bias, math does not lie. The math for this is published and public. Where is the math that says it is wrong? Never produced, never presented. Not agreeing with it is meaningless without the math to prove it.
CipherLoc = published. Counter arguments = ????
Nope - just real science and real math.
Well, it definitely is NOT a tragedy.
So, you have knowledge of the details of the contract between the inventors and the U of Idaho? Such knowledge should be shared!
Saying that it has not been vetted is not correct. It was vetted by the University of Idaho, as well as by a number of professors who looked at it. Those professors did NOT have any financial interest in the product. BTW, who is QUALIFIED to pass judgment on the math and said it was wrong?