[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: video as a source of public randomness
At 5:08 PM 11/3/95, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
>Timothy C. May writes:
>> I don't plan to belabor this point. Radioactive decay sources are
>> certainly fine, though not likely to be purchased by most people.
>Video digitzation equipment connected to TV tuners turned to dead air,
>your suggestion, are equally unlikely to be purchased by most
>people. The geiger counters are very simple and cheap, too.
It is not correct to call this my "suggestion." I was responding to a
previous post by Andrew Isaacson who said: "How useful would it be to use a
video stream as a source of random input to something like /dev/random?
I'm thinking along the lines of a Connectix QuickCam (sp?) or the cool
videocam that comes with the Indy...."
I was commenting on the sources of randomness, such as atmospheric RF
variations, antenna configuration, tuner sensitivity, amplifier noise,
etc., that would make prediction of snow bits very difficult.
As to suggesting setting the tuner to dead air, this was just one facet of
I have no brief with any of the proposed schemes: nearly any are better
than what we have now, if widely deployed and suitable used.
Views here are not the views of my Internet Service Provider or Government.
Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
[email protected] 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^756839 | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."