[nkmskdmfodf]

> You are so sure you’re right that you are not really thinking about what I am saying, and how it applies to real world situations- especially things like real life high stakes life or death situations.

Nah, you're just saying a lot of stuff that's factually incorrect and just terrible advice overall. You lack understanding what you're talking about. And the stakes are pretty irrelevant to whether a system is secure or not.

> For things like ECDSA, like anything else you implement obscurity on a one off basis tailored to the specific use case- know your opponent and make them think you are using an entirely different method and protocol that they’ve already figured out and compromised.

You're going to make ECDSA more secure by making people think you're not using ECDSA? That makes so little sense in so many ways. Ahahahahaha.

[UniverseHacker]

I very well may be wrong, but if so you are not aware of how, and I will need to find someone else to explain it to me. I’ve been interested for a while in having a serious debate with someone that understands and advocates for the position you claim to have- but if you understood it you would be able to meaningfully defend it rather than using dismissive statements.

[nkmskdmfodf]

You do you champ.