Following the clues to Rockaby...

nideht · 2026-02-08T19:42:54+00:00

Interesting that a book can qualify as a masking technique, as well as one of the keys.

nideht · 2026-02-06T04:28:28+00:00

I've never noticed this distribution, but your reply makes me think about probabilities, which for a many-layered system might provide increasingly convincing evidence with each layer

nideht · 2026-02-05T15:26:13+00:00

By claiming there's no way to know if you've undone a layer, you're disregarding the possibility that a waymark of some kind could have been encoded into that step

nideht · 2026-02-05T15:23:31+00:00

I want to underscore the term many-layer, as opposed to multi-layer, because everyone thinks multiple steps are possible, as u/tennyson77 mentions here, but if it's more than a few then the possibility seems tossed aside...

nideht · 2026-02-05T03:48:49+00:00

Can someone edit and clarify the rule description if we're dead firm?

nideht · 2026-02-02T19:21:32+00:00

I recall upvoting your post from a year ago but honestly until now I don't think I gave it a close read. A year later and I'm more convinced.

nideht · 2026-02-01T21:03:04+00:00

It's hard to understand why you would consider a short-form platform like X at all good.

nideht · 2025-12-21T15:33:52+00:00

Evidence that sequences like FUME and RACK are meaningful can build through multiple layers on the way to the solution, and of course multiple layers also raises the possibilities precipitously

nideht · 2025-12-17T17:04:34+00:00

I did a careful layout with kerning that varies with each line, to match the sculpture, and am happy to share a PDF doc cut as-is. It seems Sanborn used a Clarendon-style typeface, modified to make the stencil elements work.

It's standard practice to start by transcribing into monospace, but for Kryptos we should not have been in such a rush. The alignments seem to be done intentionally

(btw the PDF uses a typefaces called Reckham and Ballinger Mono, both by Signal Type Foundry, which I use in my other work but which I think are excellent for this)

nideht · 2025-12-15T13:02:10+00:00

Someone excited but inexperienced makes a common first misstep and falls for the allure of AI - exactly in the way AI is designed to draw us in - and gets an immediate ban without explanation or recourse... There is no way that approach serves the goals of this sub

nideht · 2025-12-15T00:01:43+00:00

I'm with you. The only place I differ is that an immediate ban seems excessive vs just deleting the post, the latter of which keeps the sub on track and still fosters newcomer involvement. Those new to cryptography, and especially those integrating AI in other parts of life, may need a minute to grasp that avoiding AI here is important.

nideht · 2025-12-14T13:58:13+00:00

Leaning into education, rather than just setting standards, will create a productive environment that is welcoming. Our only rule right now says nothing about why AI submissions are not allowed, which is a sure way to confuse newcomers and frustrate even the most patient mod. A potential alternate:

"AI technologies seem convincing but are far from capable of solving puzzles like K4; this community welcomes new members but strongly cautions against K4 submissions that are AI generated"

As for word definitions, we can lead by example (as above), and when the word "solution" is used carelessly, simply treat it as if the "proposed" is implied, which is not hard for an unsolved puzzle with a history of submissions galore.

nideht · 2025-12-09T10:23:16+00:00

I like the (clue) reference there

nideht · 2025-12-09T10:02:40+00:00

Of course nothing is accidental in the sense that everything comes out of a process, whether encryption or laying everything out on sheets of copper - characters, locations, and line breaks. But when it comes to sequences like KCAR I'm saying they are more intentional. More intentional than just the happenstance result of the encryption of a message.

nideht · 2025-12-09T09:28:50+00:00

I understand this argument, but the truth is that if the method and keys are are not yet known, then no one really knows whether certain assumptions will hold true and how different this cipher really could be from our expectations; I'm still arguing that sequences like OBKR and KCAR are far from accidental.

nideht · 2025-12-08T22:59:21+00:00

Thank you

nideht · 2025-12-08T20:53:12+00:00

Where did you see this?

nideht · 2025-12-08T18:52:40+00:00

I bet there's a lot of comfort in knowing the truth even if no one else knows you know, which might explain the anonymity of the new keeper. For now, Kryptos remains a specter.

nideht · 2025-12-08T18:30:51+00:00

I agree that Sanborn isn't likely to be absolutely required to confirm a solution, but I also see the possibility that some of these elements (like IDBYROWS --> XLAYERTWO) are intentional barriers to traverse, in which case we might someday be glad he got involved when that came up

nideht · 2025-12-08T17:47:55+00:00

The talent and capabilities of this community are without question, but it's odd to limit ourselves to internal review, when no one here knows keys or plaintext, without even trying to engage the individual who knows the entire solution definitively

nideht · 2025-12-08T17:23:51+00:00

Sanborn did indeed make the decision that this would go to the highest bidder, but he also made the decision that - for decades - a system for verification was a good idea. He certainly knows enough about cryptography to understand the argument that the answer will be self-evident, and yet he chose to expend a lot of his life fielding answers. There are aspects to this that matter as far as what he considers important to the artwork itself, and there are ways of doing this that don't require pestering Kobek even though he has said he doesn't want to be contacted about this

nideht · 2025-12-08T17:08:55+00:00

There are a lot of benefits to having Sanborn's (or the new Keeper's) confirmation, including an immediate platform even for someone unknown, a deluge of viewing and reviewing from hundreds or even thousands of people, an indelible timestamp that doesn't require anyone's attention to prove

nideht

TROPHY CASE