Talk:Cryptography

Add mention of quantum cryptography

It seems odd that the main Wikipedia article on cryptography contains no description or link for quantum cryptography. Especially as the article contains several mentions of post-quantum cryptography (one of which was recently added), and a number of the existing references include quantum cryptography in their titles.

I'm not qualified to add such a section. So I leave this suggestion here. -- M.boli (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

ZOSCII (Zero-Overhead Secure Code Information Interchange)

I believe ZOSCII deserves inclusion in this article or potentially its own article. It provides what appears to be information-theoretic security.

Overview

ZOSCII is an Open Sourced encoding system (not encryption). It is an alternative scheme which provides Post Quantum Computer level security and the mechanism relies on address-based indirection, distinguishing it from conventional lattice-based or code-based PQC methods, while still satisfying the requirement for quantum resistance.

Why This Matters for Wikipedia

Verifiable Challenge: There is a public challenge at zosciicoin.com with cryptocurrency that has remained unclaimed for 3+ months (as of October 2025), providing empirical evidence of the system's resistance to attack.

Expert Commentary: The system has been dismissed by cryptography experts (notably Bruce Schneier called it "snake-oil of the highest degree" in private correspondence), yet no one has successfully broken it. This controversy itself is encyclopedic.

Fundamental Difference: ZOSCII operates on information-theoretic principles similar to one-time pads but with address-based indirection. This contrasts with traditional PQC, which often relies on computational hardness problems (like the shortest vector problem in lattices) that are believed to be difficult even for quantum computers.

Technical Mechanism

The system works by: 1. Using a shared 64KB+ high-entropy file (LUT) as reference 2. Encoding each byte by selecting a random address where that byte value appears in the LUT 3. Output is simply a list of addresses with no mathematical transformation

Security properties:

• Without the LUT: addresses are meaningless random numbers
• With wrong LUT: produces different but equally plausible data
• No distinguishable pattern that indicates encoding occurred
• Multiple valid interpretations possible (plausible deniability)

Controversy and Criticism

Academic Reception: The system has been dismissed by traditional cryptographers as "not encryption" because it doesn't use mathematical transformations. Critics argue this represents "security through obscurity."

Counterargument: Proponents argue this criticism misses the point - the system claims to be "not encryption" but rather a novel, information-theoretic form of **Post-Quantum** security. The security derives from ambiguity, not obscurity. The address list provides zero Shannon information about the plaintext without the LUT.

Open Questions:

• Is this genuinely novel or a variant of existing information-theoretic approaches?
• **Is its non-mathematical approach a valid PQC model?**

Notability Concerns

I acknowledge potential WP:NOTABILITY concerns:

• Limited peer-reviewed academic publications
• Creator appears to work independently rather than through traditional academic channels
• Main sources are project website and GitHub repository

However, I argue notability exists due to:

• Public challenge with verifiable monetary stakes (empirical testing)
• Commentary from recognized experts (even if dismissive)
• Novel approach that challenges conventional cryptographic thinking
• Growing discussion in online security communities

Proposed Sections

If included, I suggest:

1. Brief technical overview (without implementation details that could be WP:HOWTODOC)
2. Comparison to traditional **cryptography** and **conventional Post-Quantum** approaches
3. Expert commentary and controversy
4. Public challenge and empirical results
5. Criticism and counterarguments

Request for Input

Before creating an article or major section, I'd like community feedback on:

• Is this sufficiently notable for Wikipedia inclusion?
• Should it be its own article or subsection of Information-theoretic security?
• What reliable secondary sources exist beyond expert commentary and the public challenge?
• How do we handle the tension between expert dismissal and empirical results?

The core question: Does Wikipedia document only academically-accepted approaches, or also controversial systems with empirical evidence but limited peer review?

PrimalNinja (talk) 02:30, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Not worth of inclusion until there is coverage by secondary sources. Brandon (talk) 20:36, 5 October 2025 (UTC)