Re: Peer review
If one isn't prepared to be disappointed by the answer, and learn from it, then one should not ask the question.
In cryptography "AFAIK" is simply not good enough. Unless one is prepared to think as a true hostile would, then one is not in the game. The opponent is ruthless, and has far more resources than most folk are prepared to give credit for.
If one is serious about crypto, then reviewing existing papers—your favourite search engine is your friend—would be a very good place to start. Are existing proposals better or worse than yours? And then making friends, one way or another, with a university (or industry) crypto group would be a good second or first step.
Cryptography is not simply about the maths, it's really about making sure that any proposed scheme is secure in the manner in which it is to be used. Thus the frequent development process, team-based, is make a cockshy system, let a hostile team loose against it, find and evaluate the weaknesses, rinse & repeat. It's very hard to do on one's own.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
