Obviously, I don't know which stories are bogus and which ones are real, but you can do a quick google search and find all kinds of cases of people claiming government cover up.
You obviously don't entertain the idea that those could be legitimate. What makes you think you'll entertain the idea if it were to happen to a lead cryptographer that you've never met before in your life?
and how are you determining what is probable? Just because you believe the government doesn't make last ditch efforts to cover up with lies, doesn't mean that is necessarily the truth. How many coups need to happen before you consider me a rather typical cynic rather than a paranoid extremist?
I very much agree with you that it's not worth focusing on, but you were acting like it was never a possibility simply because the people being attacked would be well educated.
> You obviously don't entertain the idea that those could be legitimate.
Not when proposed by apparently paranoid HN users, I don't.
> What makes you think you'll entertain the idea if it were to happen to a lead cryptographer that you've never met before in your life?
I happen to be involved with cryptography. I'm very familiar with three of the people on the Zcash team, one of whom I call "friend".
Instead of worrying about stopping every logically possible attack, I find it more productive to focus on stopping the 99.9999% of plausible attacks. If the government manages to pull off something theoretically possible but unbelievably improbable, they simply deserve to win that round.
> I happen to be involved with cryptography. I'm very familiar with three of the people on the Zcash team, one of whom I call "friend".
Maybe this is where your potential bias stems from. I mean, what's the point of name dropping here if it's not stemming from a bit of ego, maybe strong enough ego to believe you're out of reach for a three letter agency? You know three of them, great, but you don't know all of them and you may not know the most major contributor and it's possible there exists a key member that has an already shady past.
The hypothetical in question isn't even intended for you. It's intended for the general public. Most of whom would gladly eat up whatever story they are sold.
> The hypothetical in question isn't even intended for you. It's intended for the general public. Most of whom would gladly eat up whatever story they are sold.
When you frame the conversation that way, it makes more sense.
You obviously don't entertain the idea that those could be legitimate. What makes you think you'll entertain the idea if it were to happen to a lead cryptographer that you've never met before in your life?