13:52:54 <lambdart> puchka: hi
13:53:10 <puchka> lambdart: hi :)
13:57:41 <lambdart> puchka: ca va?
13:58:07 <lambdart> puchka: just kidding :)
15:31:43 <Rucknium[m]> UkoeHB: To be counter-pedantic, almost all the published research on ring signature de-anonymization through statistical means uses the term "attack". Maybe they misuse it according to a stricter definition of "attack", but my use of the term is consistent with the literature in this area.
15:34:44 <Rucknium[m]> When I first starting looking into this issue, I searched for standardization of the definition of the term "attack" in computer science, and I couldn't find agreement. The waters are already muddy.
16:14:18 <hyc> Unfortunately "computer science" isn't a science. most academics would tell you that
16:24:49 <UkoeHB> Rucknium[m]: it's mostly just misleading, because the 'attacker' doesn't actually interact with the system in any way except to read data
16:32:04 <Rucknium[m]> As far as I can tell, "attack" is widely used in that circumstance. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciphertext-only_attack
16:32:58 <Rucknium[m]> Yes, it is passive rather than active. So I can clarify in the future by using the term "passive statistical attack".
16:37:01 <UkoeHB> yeah I suppose that's as accurate as you can get
16:37:14 <hyc> +1