There was a previous discussion here not long ago (11 days ago, 159 comments, 385 points):
<a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11719543" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11719543</a>
Interesting idea but I wonder why this technique is stated new since it looks very easy and comprehensive to me just by reading some sentences. Is this really new or is this just a bloated message containing something that isn't that hot?<p>Another side note: the article contains very much sentences (more than 2/3) not directly explaining the new technique. The read was not that great for me, and I guess this counts for most of the readers since it should be well known that random numbers are a hard thing. Don't get me wrong. Explaining things is great but the title doesn't match the most of the content.
> But this still falls short of being truly random. If the mouse is on the left of the screen one moment, it’s less likely to be all the way on the right in the following instant.<p>Except... that's not how it works... Entropy from input devices is gathered from the timing of interrupts. It's not just looking at the actual values.
I really don't understand how this is useful. If you have several sources of randomness, even if they are weak, can you not run them through a cryptographically strong hash function and get a more random output?<p>The voting system sounds even weirder. How does taking groups of threes solve malicious voters? What even are malicious voters?