<story><title>Building a Curve25519 Hardware Accelerator</title><url>https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=6140</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>staticassertion</author><text>&amp;gt; Wait, what? So many articles and journals I read on the topic just talk about prime fields, modular reduction and blah blah blah like it’s asking someone to buy milk and eggs at the grocery store.&lt;p&gt;No kidding, it&amp;#x27;s so frustrating! I have to read some articles&amp;#x2F; papers like 20x and open a bunch of wikipedia tabs to understand wtf they&amp;#x27;re talking about. If they gave a simple, high level explanation it would save tons of time - while a wikipedia article is going to be very in depth, it&amp;#x27;s not tailored to the context of what I&amp;#x27;m reading, so I often have to look at a whole bunch of things to start to build a good model in my head for wtf they&amp;#x27;re trying to convey.&lt;p&gt;This post, on the other hand, is perfect for me. Thank you so much for writing it I&amp;#x27;m learning a ton.</text></comment>
<story><title>Building a Curve25519 Hardware Accelerator</title><url>https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=6140</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>OJFord</author><text>&amp;gt; It’s a weird thing about academics — they like to write papers and “share ideas”, but it’s very hard to get source code from them.&lt;p&gt;I suppose at least part of the reason, especially for things like crypto and statistics, is that they don&amp;#x27;t want to get bogged down in plausibly-correct claims of fatal flaws, and be perhaps repeatedly (over years hence) put in a defensive position of having to prove the criticism &lt;i&gt;in&lt;/i&gt;correct or have everyone assume the work was wrong?&lt;p&gt;I can sort of understand that. The same&amp;#x27;s true for the papers themselves of course, but I can see it being more annoying for code. (&amp;#x27;But it&amp;#x27;s never going to actually be in that state&amp;#x27;, etc.)</text></comment>