Re: AI's take on my cipher...

On 7/7/2025 7:18 AM, Stefan Claas wrote:

Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

On 7/6/2025 11:41 AM, Stefan Claas wrote:

Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

>
This is from Grok here wrt the following content:

>
[...]
>
Let's face it, nobody in the world would use your
webpage ciper in production, because security aware
people use encryption offline.

>
Keep in mind that it's client only. You can download the page, turn the
internet off and use it fine. I just thought it would be fun to be able
to create links with ciphertext payloads.
>
>

So why are you still
promoting your cipher here, instead of using minicrypt,
which I asked you to test on Windows?

>
Do you realize how busy I have been lately? Check out this 3d field, fly
around when you get bored:
>
https://skfb.ly/pyP9E
>
Promoting it? Well yeah in a sense. For a certain reason... I just want
it to be heavily attacked and broken by some clever person. That would
be neat to me! Why would I use minicrypt? Has it went through proper and
extensive crypt analysis? Btw, I never used GO.
>
Basically, I like several properties of my experimental cipher. No
ciphertext has any data sent in the clear. Aka, no IV, no sequence
numbers, ect... A ciphertext is also bit sensitive. Any alteration to
the ciphertext will make it decrypt into random garbage. Each encryption
of a plaintext will be radically different.

>
It's a bottomless insolence the way you treat me, always being busy with
your constant excuses.
>
Slowly but surely I'm realizing why the bitmessage community calls you an idiot.
>
EOD.

 It would be great if somebody took their valuable time to try to crack my experimental cipher. I would be grateful, indeed. But I would not get all pissed of about it if they did not do such time consuming things. Not at all.