vrtx0 4 days ago

Sorry, what do you mean by “proprietary details”?

Reply View 3 replies
  • sbuk 4 days ago

    They are alluding to the fact that the implementation is closed source, and therefore "untrustworthy". It's a trite point, of course, but not without some merit.

    Reply View 2 replies
    • vrtx0 3 days ago

      I don’t see any merit, honestly. That would assume one is able to audit every bit of code they run, including updates, and control the build system.

      I mean, the Wally paper contains enough information to effectively implement homomorphic encryption for similar purposes. The field was almost entirely academic ~12 years ago…

      I miss talking shop on HN. Comments like that are why we can’t have nice things.

      Reply View 1 reply
      • sbuk 3 days ago

        I do agree that everything is politicized. I'd have liked to have seen an explanation for laypeople and perhaps the option being opt-in. To me, there is some merit in that stance. It is a side-note. It is a shame that we can't talk about these things openly without people getting offended because of it.

        Reply View 0 replies