My ongoing rage at papers that define an adversary strong enough to compromise any participant at will, but weak enough that they are incapable of arbitrary protocol violations.
"We permit the adversary to perform all of these actions, but we assume they will never lie to the other members about it"
"We assume the adversary is omnipotent in regards to the internal state of protocol participants, but they will definitely never introduce arbitrary network delays."
Mostly I just wish you would say your protocol is insecure in the abstract, instead of making me wait until page 11.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
