Is this perfect randomness?

Two FM radio tuners each set to two different frequencies
Convert each to 16 bit raw audio streams
XOR each stream together
sha512 each 1024 bytes of the XORed streams

Other urls found in this thread:

chiru.no/a/true_random_number_generator/
medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/quantum-random-number-generator-created-using-a-smartphone-camera-602f88552b64
blog.cloudflare.com/randomness-101-lavarand-in-production/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

> he thinks the CMB is random
> laughingwhores.jpg

Only autists chase true random. Pseudo random with a long period is good enough

> takes 2 sources of perfect randomness and applies transforms on them

>generate
>random
its not random anymore if you generate it

just use a zener diode, you homosexual

Theoretically "perfect randomness" is almost impossible to generate.
But it's not that hard to generate "good enough" randomness.

Also it's bad practice to play arround with random values too much. A crypt guy once told me that if you calculate the hash value of the hash value of the hashvalue.. of something, it makes things more predictable.

But take that with a bit of salt (no pun intended), since I'm not really into this whole cypher game.

as long as the FM radios are receiving "static", then you're receiving noise which is considered to be a uniformly distributed source of true randomness.

>not recording a wall of lava lamps and hashing every frame

Electron tunnelling bruh. You can use zeners at near breakdown voltage to get true random.

*holds up spork*

b-b-but muh collisions

You already get true random from your hardware

chiru.no/a/true_random_number_generator/

so what you're saying is, the universe is a botnet?

Most of the "noise" your tuners receive is interference from other electronics devices. This isn't random at all.

A better random source is your smartphone's camera. Cameras these days are almost sensitive enough to get output from a single photon. If you sample noise from your camera when shielded from EM (alu tape, for example) you are almost directly looking at quantum mechanical noise.

trips for complete bullshit

Fool, don't you know static is the combined screams of all the deceased for help?

How about you get a look at this: medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/quantum-random-number-generator-created-using-a-smartphone-camera-602f88552b64

>Medium.com
Wow what a reliable scientific journal

WELL HOW ABOUT SCROLLING DOWN FOR THE ARXIV ARTICLE YOU DESPERATE FAGGOT.

Kids these days....

more like perfect waste of time

>sha512 each 1024 bytes of the XORed streams
What is the fucking point of this step?

it throws them off

I see some patterns in there.

True random data: tritium glowlights radioactive decay.
Detector: cellphone geiger counter.
Total cost: ~$50
Both available on Amazon

That's not a geiger counter, it doesn't use a Geiger-Müller tube.
You can get real geiger counters from China for 35 bucks.

random numbers are flawed in that they all recombine to 7


cryptofags BTFO

Annnnd the first totally expected moronic reply appears...

Generating random data using a camera:
blog.cloudflare.com/randomness-101-lavarand-in-production/

Second moronic post noted. I expect more.

If it's truly random where are the hotdogs? Where are the eggplants? Where are the sporks? All I see are blacks, whites, grays, and a couple of yellow streaks. That's only like four things. Not very random.

you realize the invent entire number systems around this idea

it's called a derivation

like how you gonna tell me

All I can tell you is grow a brain and take a physics class, Tardboy.

heavy water reduced down to a child's toy
we are living the future here

it still needs a true random seed though.

we all know that the only thing for you need for truly random numbers is for a RaNdOm~* emo girl to say it

>implying there is randomness in this world

It's not "perfectly random" because you passed it through a hash function. Practically, the outputs of SHA-2 is fairly uniformly distributed, but you can't guarantee it. If all hashes cannot occur with equal likelyhood it isn't truely random.

You're the retard who recommends a radiation detector that can't detect beta radiation.
Which is what tritium emits.

You need a Geiger-Müller tube.

>implying there aren't proofs already showing there is

t. hidden variable

nice try, satan. lava lamps are botnet.

If I generate a random 800x800 pixel image, what's the probability of it being porn?

Not an argument.

Yes these are totally random ;-)
T. NSA

Sides in orbit dood

>no pun intended
you have to go back

You are a fucking idiot

Small. Depends on what you consider porn.

Some rfics like, sx1278, have a dedicated register for generating random numbers. You just put the rfic in rx mode and periodically retrieve the wideband rssi value.

Good argument.

There is no such thing as randomness.
What is random to humans is random because we don't understand it. Yet.
Most "random" thing now is Universe background radiation. Because we do not fully understand it.

stop watching vsauce

it's generally good advice to tell someone not to roll their own crypto without really knowing what they're doing
shit's more complicated than it looks

True randomness is objectively impossible.

depends, first you need to determine the probability of any one image being "porn"
it might also help if you could objectively classify an image as being "porn"