Re: [Eligibility-discuss] On 3797 alternatives

[Rob Sayre <[e-mail]>]

I'm not really here to sell drand, but it does meet the requirements on
paper: "the source is announced before the ceremony starts...".

Presumably you'd pick a drand iteration number from the future, and use
that. The draft is a little confusing in using stock tickers, because
"Section 3.1: Sources of Randomness" of RFC3797* says not to do that...

While I agree that entropy "sources exist", the debate here is guidance on
picking a verifiable one.

thanks,
Rob

* https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3797#section-3.1

On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 11:13 AM Martin Thomson <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Though Donald is concerned about obtaining adequate entropy for this
> purpose, I am not. As you say, sources exist.  (Indeed, this could be an
> application of various distributed consensus systems, though some of us
> might be loathe to use them for even this purpose.)
>
> On Wed, May 31, 2023, at 14:09, Rob Sayre wrote:
> > Martin Thomson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >> That's flaw 1 in Paul's draft: insufficient entropy.
> >> Flaw 1b is that D is described as a number, but a
> >> byte sequence is better and what it really is anyway.
> >
> > This sounds like a use case drand / "The League of Entropy" is supposed
> > to help with, but I've never used it, and can't speak to its quality
> > (although it certainly seems solid).
> >
> > https://drand.love
> >
> > Here's what it outputs:
> >
> > Latest Randomness
> > ----
> > Here's the latest random value that was generated, round #3004181:
> > de9a71d9ece82657fe7e77ce45889466d4a73ca9b7bf95ab8748dd47711fe980
> > The next randomness is expected in 2 seconds.
> >
> > thanks,
> > Rob
>