Yes, but I was explaining that no reuse requirement can be equally important for encryption schemes that don't have it included in the name. Claiming that one of them is worse than other because of number reuse even though doing so is equally wrong for both is not a good example.
Yup, but itβs more useful to talk about that reuse as a bad implementation of one-time pads than it is to call it something other than OTP.
In the classic sense of a small paper pad used by spies, reuse was fairly common because of the logistical problem of supplying agents with fresh pads.
I thought the OT meant "One Time". Reusing the key would take the key from singular to plural usage, no?