Talk:Ring learning with errors signature

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article was accepted from this draft on 5 July 2015 by reviewer Anarchyte (talk · contribs).

Computing C‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

I worked on making sure the equations and text matched what is in the Singh and GLP papers. Jinbolin (talk) 02:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a statement of opinion

I am not the original author of this article but have made a number of additions and edits over the past year. I do not believe it reflects the opinions of the original author and should not be described as such. Much of the information about the prospects for quantum computing comes from the "opinions" of supposed experts in the field of quantum computing. The original author seems to have documented his or her sources for their material.

I recommend that the notification of this article as an opinion piece be removed. Jinbolin (talk) 18:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Statement of Opinion

I agree with JINBOLIN. This article has references for all its assertions and does not reflect an opinion. Cryptocat (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Formal name and BLISS.

According to a NIST 2015 paper, we've a formal name for this RLWE-SIG scheme, it's GLP.

In the paper, it is mentioned that GLP after cryptanalysis, has only about 80 bits of security while the BLISS scheme offers better ones. After a quick search I found there's no BLISS(Cryptography) page, and I think we should create it. Here's reference: https://eprint.iacr.org/2013/383.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannyniu (talk • contribs) 05:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]