Talk:NewHope

HitroMilanese, this article is as sourced as the BLISS signature scheme, and probably better sourced. Although they're of different functions (opposite one might say), 2 schemes are similar in that they both use power-of-2 polynoimals and modulus 12289, and it can be said with confidence, that before the NIST PQC project, both are pretty much contemporary.

I'd say if you feel NewHope is still undersourced by now, you may probably want to move my BLISS article to draft as well; where as I think moving it back to main namespace wouldn't be a less sensible thing to do. Dannyniu (talk) 02:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Move to article space

I've cleaned up the article and moved it to article space. I've tried to address the comments by reviewer @HitroMilanese::

"Comment: Please remove external links from "See also" section. Large part of "Features" section is unsourced. Introduce additional references from independent and reliable sources. References from blogs or self published sources are unacceptable. Hitro 06:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)"

Note that Google's security blog is a reliable source for Google's actions and the authors' papers are a reliable source for their design decisions. See WP:SELFSOURCE.--agr (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)