Talk:Dining cryptographers protocol

message: I'm working on a complete rewrite and expansion of this topic and should have bits and pieces of it up within a few days.  If anybody wants to add their own suggestions to things that should go here, please feel free to submit. :) --Vesta 23:38, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It'd be great to have a rewrite/expansion! Would a diagram be of any use here? — Matt Crypto 00:01, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was thinking something similar to the image at dining philosophers.  Since the rewrite page for this article is probably going to look incomplete for a few days and is likely to undergo heavy revision, I've created a rewrite page to keep it separate from the main article.  There is also a prelimiary TOC at that page.  Hopefully this is not improper of me to do. --Vesta 02:06, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seems like a perfectly OK thing to do to me. — Matt Crypto 08:06, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Are we still up for working on rewrite? I'm doing research related to this, and I'd like to contribute. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dartbanks (talk • contribs) 12:02, June 25, 2006  (UTC)
:Go for it, it's been more then a year! Ariel. 06:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status? 

message: We learned this subject at IDC (Interdiciplinary Center, Israel). 
My professor gave us permission to use the images from his lecture (the pictures of his lectures have all the permissions). 
Only the first image - the comic from Chaum is taken from the website.
My professor said it's o.k. to use this image, and also, you can see in the following site that it is trivial that it has a GFDL permission - 
http://www.weidai.com/mix-net.txt
This is a quote from there:
Permission to copy without fee all or part of this material is granted
provided that the copies are not made or distributed for direct
commercial advantage, the ACM copyright notice and the title of the
publication and its date appear, and notice is given that copying is
by permission of the Association for Computing Machinery.  To copy
otherwise, or to republish, requires a fee and/or specific permission. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hagitwiki (talk • contribs) 09:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not GFDL compatible; GFDL requires permission for commercial use as well. Veinor (talk to me) 16:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images licenses 

message: I removed two images that demonstrate the algorithm until I'll be able to get a copyright approval from GFDL for them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hagitwiki (talk • contribs) 16:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the text? Where is your evidence of the authors releasing this text under the GFDL? An explicit "permission to use" does not imply a permission to relicense their content, so you are violating their copyright. And DO NOT re-add the content before you have sorted out copyright issues. -- intgr 16:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two images removal 

message: First, the compare to Dining Philosophers is misleading, as this problem has nothing to do with a DC network protocol. Next, the random numbers does not need to be exchanged with the neighbour partners only, in fact, the structure is not a ring at all (Cite (David Chaum in his original paper): "Each participant has a secret key bit in common with, say, every other participant").  Imi, 141.76.46.116 14:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Connection to Philosophers misleading and not a ring 

message: * In the story there are 3 cryptographers.
* The generalisation is a graph, not a ring.
* Participants communicate pairwise over a 'secure channel', not over 'encrypted links'
* They throw coins and compare them, they do not pick numbers and substract them. (Generalisation uses XOR = Addition in GF2)
* Refers to a possibly incorrect source. Chaum's original paper would be a good reference.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.93.205.50 (talk) 02:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Several problems found 

message: I rewrote much of the page - which basically consisted of the definition. I used some of the info from the official rewrite, and I believe this page is much better now. The transmitting one-bit header in the rewrite was pretty much unreadable, and I think the definition here now is understandable and accurate. In my opinion, the rewrite page is no longer necessary. Fresheneesz (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite - done? 

message: Each cryptographer secretly writes down a bit (zero or one) and shows it to every other cryptographer.
Is it just me or is this phrase confusing? If the cryptographer is writing a "secret," why is he/she showing it to everyone? It's possible (likely) I'm just not understanding it well enough, but if that's the case, it seems then that the initial story could use clarification. 76.235.199.230 (talk) 23:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Story confusion 

message: "Chaum present trap messages can prevent malicious data."
What?  How?  RJFJR (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chaum present trap messages