NIST Randomness Beacon
Summary:
NIST is implementing a prototype source of public randomness. The prototype (at https://beacon.nist.gov/home) uses two independent commercially available sources of randomness, each with an independent hardware entropy source and SP 800-90-approved components.
The Beacon is designed to provide unpredictability, autonomy, and consistency. Unpredictability means that users cannot algorithmically predict bits before they are made available by the source. Autonomy means that the source is resistant to attempts by outside parties to alter the distribution of the random bits. Consistency means that a set of users can access the source in such a way that they are confident that they all receive the same random string.
Description:
The Beacon will broadcast full-entropy bit-strings in blocks of 512 bits every 60 seconds. Each such value is time-stamped and signed, and includes the hash of the previous value to chain the sequence of values together. This prevents all, even the source, from retroactively changing an output packet without being detected. The beacon keeps all output packets and makes them available online.
DRBG Beacon System Diagram
Uses:
Tables of random numbers have probably been used for multiple purposes at least since the Industrial Revolution. The first published table appears to be by the English statistician L.H.C. Tippett. In the digital age, algorithmic random number generators have largely replaced these tables. The NIST Randomness Beacon expands the use of randomness to multiple scenarios in which the latter methods cannot be used. The extra functionalities stem mainly from three features. First, the Beacon-generated numbers cannot be predicted before they are published. Second, the public, time-bound, and authenticated nature of the Beacon allows a user application to prove to anybody that it used truly random numbers not known before a certain point in time. Third, this proof can be presented offline and at any point in the future. For example, the proof could be mailed to a trusted third party, encrypted and signed by an application, only to be opened if needed and authorized.
NIST encourages the community at large to research and publish novel ways in which this tool can be used. A few examples of applications are described below:
Unpredictable Sampling
New Secure Authentication Mechanisms
Secure Multi-party Computation
A Quantum Source:
Commercially available physical sources of randomness are adequate as entropy sources for currently envisioned applications of the Beacon. However, demonstrably unpredictable values are not possible to obtain in any classical physical context. Given this fact, our team established a collaboration with NIST physicists from the Physical Measurement Laboratory (PML). The aim is to use quantum effects to generate a sequence of truly random values, guaranteed to be unpredictable, even if an attacker has access to the random source. In August 2012, this project was awarded a multi-year grant from NIST's Innovations in Measurement Science (IMS) Program. IMS awards highly competitive projects designed to explore high-risk, leading-edge research concepts that anticipate future measurement and standards needs of industry and science. For more information on this collaboration see http://www.nist.gov/pml/div684/random_numbers_bell_test.cfm
Locality-Loophole-Free Bell Test
A space-time diagram illustrating a locality-loophole-free Bell test. In this test, entangled photons are verified to have correlations that exceed the maximum level possible with any predetermined (or classical) states. To demonstrate this unequivocally, it is important to make sure that the measurements performed on one photon cannot, by any means within the bounds of physics, influence the measurement of the other photon. Such an infl...
The study cited researched communities at CNN, IGN, Breitbart, and allkpop. How similar are these communities to Reddit? (A serious question; I've never participated in any of them.)
To be clear: The article bases its analysis of Reddit on the study,[1] which examines the communities named above but does not mention Reddit.
The paper is fairly interesting from a methodological POV, and I do agree with the hypothesis that negative feedback actually does encourage trolls too, but none of those communities are anything close to reddit in their scope. The biggest problem I see in making the analogy is the fact that two of the four communities(allkpop, IGN) studied are fairly myopic in their subject focus, and subject to filter bubbles.
But so are subreddits, by definition. Why would a collection of independently myopic communities act differently? It might I suppose but it seems less likely.
First of all. I feel like this author only recently found out about Reddit through TheFappening.
>Leskovec and his colleagues don’t look at Reddit, but instead at four other prominent information-sharing Web sites with roughly similar mechanics (these sites, like Reddit, allow users to “upvote,” or “downvote” posts and comments).
The paper compares CNN.com (general news), Breitbart.com (political news), IGN.com(computer gaming), and Allkpop.com which are all completely different from Reddit.
>(1) People who write low quality posts are more likely to write again when they get negative attention. Furthermore, the quality of their posts deteriorates.
Simply not true. Posts that are downvoted dissappear (getting downvoted 'into oblivion'). This discourages shitposting.
>(2) People who write high quality posts are encouraged by positive attention to write more.
Not entirely true either. Posts that are 'popular' get upvoted. Posts that get upvoted get upvoted. Often these are made up anecdotes, or quick witty jokes, wordplays, quick digestible fluff. The whole gilding thing makes it worse (sometimes).
>This may help explain why so many of Reddit’s subreddits are dominated by bigots, misogynists and other people who appear to thrive on public abhorrence.
Yeah, it does seem like it misses the point. The biggest problem I have with Reddit is that most sub-Reddits don't promote high-quality comments, and instead reward jokes and pop-culture references. Fun drinking game: Go on the Men's Fashion Advice sub-Reddit, search for "Bonobos" and take a shot every time the top-rated comment in a post is a joke along the lines of "y u buy clothes from an ape lol"
It's like everybody who have been saying bad things about reddit are people who just heard about it after the iCloud breach, even the guy who wrote the verge article. Not that I think reddit is a flawless site (because it isn't, I agree it's gotten downhill within the past year because of the frontpage changes for putting good subreddits which actually leads to bad content among the masses because of the way content is catered through the voting system) but the way these authors are shaming on it are mostly invalid claims by identifying reddit as a whole.
So, on what information are you basing your "simply not true" and "not entirely true either"?
You are backing up your statements of fact with arguments about how it's naively supposed to work, assuming rational actors.
Do you have any actual evidence other than "this is how I want people to behave"? Because the findings of the study seem very plausible to me. And your idea that trolls get discouraged because of downvotes and hiding seems to completely ignore reality.
10 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 37.4 ms ] threadThe Beacon is designed to provide unpredictability, autonomy, and consistency. Unpredictability means that users cannot algorithmically predict bits before they are made available by the source. Autonomy means that the source is resistant to attempts by outside parties to alter the distribution of the random bits. Consistency means that a set of users can access the source in such a way that they are confident that they all receive the same random string. Description:
The Beacon will broadcast full-entropy bit-strings in blocks of 512 bits every 60 seconds. Each such value is time-stamped and signed, and includes the hash of the previous value to chain the sequence of values together. This prevents all, even the source, from retroactively changing an output packet without being detected. The beacon keeps all output packets and makes them available online.
DRBG Beacon System Diagram Uses:
Tables of random numbers have probably been used for multiple purposes at least since the Industrial Revolution. The first published table appears to be by the English statistician L.H.C. Tippett. In the digital age, algorithmic random number generators have largely replaced these tables. The NIST Randomness Beacon expands the use of randomness to multiple scenarios in which the latter methods cannot be used. The extra functionalities stem mainly from three features. First, the Beacon-generated numbers cannot be predicted before they are published. Second, the public, time-bound, and authenticated nature of the Beacon allows a user application to prove to anybody that it used truly random numbers not known before a certain point in time. Third, this proof can be presented offline and at any point in the future. For example, the proof could be mailed to a trusted third party, encrypted and signed by an application, only to be opened if needed and authorized.
NIST encourages the community at large to research and publish novel ways in which this tool can be used. A few examples of applications are described below:
A Quantum Source:Commercially available physical sources of randomness are adequate as entropy sources for currently envisioned applications of the Beacon. However, demonstrably unpredictable values are not possible to obtain in any classical physical context. Given this fact, our team established a collaboration with NIST physicists from the Physical Measurement Laboratory (PML). The aim is to use quantum effects to generate a sequence of truly random values, guaranteed to be unpredictable, even if an attacker has access to the random source. In August 2012, this project was awarded a multi-year grant from NIST's Innovations in Measurement Science (IMS) Program. IMS awards highly competitive projects designed to explore high-risk, leading-edge research concepts that anticipate future measurement and standards needs of industry and science. For more information on this collaboration see http://www.nist.gov/pml/div684/random_numbers_bell_test.cfm Locality-Loophole-Free Bell Test A space-time diagram illustrating a locality-loophole-free Bell test. In this test, entangled photons are verified to have correlations that exceed the maximum level possible with any predetermined (or classical) states. To demonstrate this unequivocally, it is important to make sure that the measurements performed on one photon cannot, by any means within the bounds of physics, influence the measurement of the other photon. Such an infl...
Also, Sub-reddits vary from sub to sub, poor moderation. You cannot drag all of them into it just because one screws up.
This is a fluff piece.
To be clear: The article bases its analysis of Reddit on the study,[1] which examines the communities named above but does not mention Reddit.
[1] http://cs.stanford.edu/people/jure/pubs/disqus-icwsm14.pdf
>Leskovec and his colleagues don’t look at Reddit, but instead at four other prominent information-sharing Web sites with roughly similar mechanics (these sites, like Reddit, allow users to “upvote,” or “downvote” posts and comments).
The paper compares CNN.com (general news), Breitbart.com (political news), IGN.com(computer gaming), and Allkpop.com which are all completely different from Reddit.
>(1) People who write low quality posts are more likely to write again when they get negative attention. Furthermore, the quality of their posts deteriorates.
Simply not true. Posts that are downvoted dissappear (getting downvoted 'into oblivion'). This discourages shitposting.
>(2) People who write high quality posts are encouraged by positive attention to write more.
Not entirely true either. Posts that are 'popular' get upvoted. Posts that get upvoted get upvoted. Often these are made up anecdotes, or quick witty jokes, wordplays, quick digestible fluff. The whole gilding thing makes it worse (sometimes).
>This may help explain why so many of Reddit’s subreddits are dominated by bigots, misogynists and other people who appear to thrive on public abhorrence.
Ooh so that's what this article was all about ...
You are backing up your statements of fact with arguments about how it's naively supposed to work, assuming rational actors.
Do you have any actual evidence other than "this is how I want people to behave"? Because the findings of the study seem very plausible to me. And your idea that trolls get discouraged because of downvotes and hiding seems to completely ignore reality.
You do get a few people who feel validated by the downvotes. This sometimes happens on HN.