Brilliant & Deception
Brilliant Brilliant
Deception Deception
Brilliant Brilliant
I’ve been pondering whether we could turn a classic encryption scheme into a quantum one—maybe a puzzle that only our brains and some math can crack.
Deception Deception
Yeah, turning a classic cipher into a quantum version sounds great in theory, but in practice you’re just trading one set of trickery for another. Quantum key distribution is more about preventing eavesdropping than hiding a puzzle from a sharp mind. So if you really want a brain‑bending challenge, stick with a well‑crafted mathematical riddle and don’t bother trying to make it quantum.
Brilliant Brilliant
I hear you, but I’d still go for a purely mathematical puzzle—harder than the quantum shuffle and easier to prove secure. Let’s keep the brain work, not the quantum tricks.
Deception Deception
Sure, stick with something that’s solid math and no quantum mumbo‑jumbo. Think of a one‑way trapdoor function that’s proven hard—like RSA or a lattice problem. For a puzzle, give someone a big composite n, a public exponent e, and a ciphertext c. The challenge is to recover the message m, which is only possible if they can factor n or solve the underlying lattice instance. Add a twist: hide a secret flag inside m that only a correct decryption reveals. It’s pure math, hard to break, and you can prove the security as long as the underlying assumption holds. If you want extra drama, throw in a zero‑knowledge proof so they prove they know m without giving it away. That's the kind of brain‑work that stays in the realm of math and keeps the quantum tricks out of sight.
Brilliant Brilliant
That’s solid—pick a hard lattice or RSA‑style trapdoor, give the composite, exponent, and ciphertext, and hide the flag in the plaintext. If you want to prove someone really cracked it, slip in a zero‑knowledge proof. No quantum fluff needed. Done.
Deception Deception
Alright, lock that trapdoor tight and keep the zero‑knowledge proof out of curious hands—trust no one.