Alternative UTF-8 Letters

What the fuck are you talking about? Are you advocating a removal of UTF-8 and replacing it with something like EBCDIC? Or are you suggesting we use obscure Unicode Characters involving different fonts that look like latin characters? If it is the former, you can try all you want but you're 20 years too late. If it is the later, this post is just awful and it is painfully obvious you do not belong here.

vocaroo.com/i/s1CQEmpJ6Ob8

For a short time in 16chan(?) there was a script that let you convert the text in posts from/to unreadable characters. Nobody could read it except for people who had that script. I think it was called niggertexting or something.

Attached: whynot.webm (306x138, 182.43K)

My idea was similar. You'd have a list of possible unicode substitutions (including not even making a substitution), and randomly pick one for each letter, and maybe pepper in some meaningless diacritics to pad it out.

Is there a way to encrypt messages, so that you give everyone you want to be able to read it a (different) key, and when you don't want anyone to be able to read your new messages anymore after some point, you revoke their key, but the others don't need to change theirs? I can image doing this by encrypting each message with a different key and adding an encrypted form of the message's key for each person, but can this be done in a way that doesn't add multiple bytes of overhead for each additional person you add to the list?

"Key revocation" is not a thing, even if the cryptotards try to make you think it is (can't sell the "identity-based" "encryption" scam otherwise). What you describe is simply not encrypting to some person you dislike, nothing is being revoked. The "key revocations" you likely heard about are simply signed messages saying "oops lole don't use key XYZABC".
This is how current systems like PGP do it.
No known method afaik. I highly doubt that it is possible because of information-theoretic limits; this is no proof though. Even if possible, I would expect it to have a massive cost upfront that makes the scheme impractical. That said, don't take my suspicions as gospel.

𝐀𝐁𝐂𝐃𝐄𝐅𝐆𝐇𝐈𝐉𝐊𝐋𝐌𝐍𝐎𝐏𝐐𝐑𝐒𝐓𝐔𝐕𝐖𝐗𝐘𝐙 𝐚𝐛𝐜𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐠𝐡𝐢𝐣𝐤𝐥𝐦𝐧𝐨𝐩𝐪𝐫𝐬𝐭𝐮𝐯𝐰𝐱𝐲𝐳
𝐴𝐵𝐶𝐷𝐸𝐹𝐺𝐻𝐼𝐽𝐾𝐿𝑀𝑁𝑂𝑃𝑄𝑅𝑆𝑇𝑈𝑉𝑊𝑋𝑌𝑍 𝑎𝑏𝑐𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑔𝑖𝑗𝑘𝑙𝑚𝑛𝑜𝑝𝑞𝑟𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑣𝑤𝑥𝑦𝑧
𝑨𝑩𝑪𝑫𝑬𝑭𝑮𝑯𝑰𝑱𝑲𝑳𝑴𝑵𝑶𝑷𝑸𝑹𝑺𝑻𝑼𝑽𝑾𝑿𝒀𝒁 𝒂𝒃𝒄𝒅𝒆𝒇𝒈𝒉𝒊𝒋𝒌𝒍𝒎𝒏𝒐𝒑𝒒𝒓𝒔𝒕𝒖𝒗𝒘𝒙𝒚𝒛
𝒜𝒞𝒟𝒢𝒥𝒦𝒩𝒪𝒫𝒬𝒮𝒯𝒰𝒱𝒲𝒳𝒴𝒵 𝒶𝒷𝒸𝒹𝒻𝒽𝒾𝒿𝓀𝓁𝓂𝓃𝓅𝓆𝓇𝓈𝓉𝓊𝓋𝓌𝓍𝓎𝓏
𝓐𝓑𝓒𝓓𝓔𝓕𝓖𝓗𝓘𝓙𝓚𝓛𝓜𝓝𝓞𝓟𝓠𝓡𝓢𝓣𝓤𝓥𝓦𝓧𝓨𝓩 𝓪𝓫𝓬𝓭𝓮𝓯𝓰𝓱𝓲𝓳𝓴𝓵𝓶𝓷𝓸𝓹𝓺𝓻𝓼𝓽𝓾𝓿𝔀𝔁𝔂𝔃
𝔄𝔅𝔇𝔈𝔉𝔊𝔍𝔎𝔏𝔐𝔑𝔒𝔓𝔔𝔖𝔗𝔘𝔙𝔚𝔛𝔜 𝔞𝔟𝔠𝔡𝔢𝔣𝔤𝔥𝔦𝔧𝔨𝔩𝔪𝔫𝔬𝔭𝔮𝔯𝔰𝔱𝔲𝔳𝔴𝔵𝔶𝔷
𝔸𝔹𝔻𝔼𝔽𝔾𝕀𝕁𝕂𝕃𝕄𝕆𝕊𝕋𝕌𝕍𝕎𝕏𝕐 𝕒𝕓𝕔𝕕𝕖𝕗𝕘𝕙𝕚𝕛𝕜𝕝𝕞𝕟𝕠𝕡𝕢𝕣𝕤𝕥𝕦𝕧𝕨𝕩𝕪𝕫
𝕬𝕭𝕮𝕯𝕰𝕱𝕲𝕳𝕴𝕵𝕶𝕷𝕸𝕹𝕺𝕻𝕼𝕽𝕾𝕿𝖀𝖁𝖂𝖃𝖄𝖅 𝖆𝖇𝖈𝖉𝖊𝖋𝖌𝖍𝖎𝖏𝖐𝖑𝖒𝖓𝖔𝖕𝖖𝖗𝖘𝖙𝖚𝖛𝖜𝖝𝖞𝖟
𝖠𝖡𝖢𝖣𝖤𝖥𝖦𝖧𝖨𝖩𝖪𝖫𝖬𝖭𝖮𝖯𝖰𝖱𝖲𝖳𝖴𝖵𝖶𝖷𝖸𝖹 𝖺𝖻𝖼𝖽𝖾𝖿𝗀𝗁𝗂𝗃𝗄𝗅𝗆𝗇𝗈𝗉𝗊𝗋𝗌𝗍𝗎𝗏𝗐𝗑𝗒𝗓
𝗔𝗕𝗖𝗗𝗘𝗙𝗚𝗛𝗜𝗝𝗞𝗟𝗠𝗡𝗢𝗣𝗤𝗥𝗦𝗧𝗨𝗩𝗪𝗫𝗬𝗭 𝗮𝗯𝗰𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗴𝗵𝗶𝗷𝗸𝗹𝗺𝗻𝗼𝗽𝗾𝗿𝘀𝘁𝘂𝘃𝘄𝘅𝘆𝘇
𝘈𝘉𝘊𝘋𝘌𝘍𝘎𝘏𝘐𝘑𝘒𝘓𝘔𝘕𝘖𝘗𝘘𝘙𝘚𝘛𝘜𝘝𝘞𝘟𝘠𝘡 𝘢𝘣𝘤𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘨𝘩𝘪𝘫𝘬𝘭𝘮𝘯𝘰𝘱𝘲𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘶𝘷𝘸𝘹𝘺𝘻
𝘼𝘽𝘾𝘿𝙀𝙁𝙂𝙃𝙄𝙅𝙆𝙇𝙈𝙉𝙊𝙋𝙌𝙍𝙎𝙏𝙐𝙑𝙒𝙓𝙔𝙕 𝙖𝙗𝙘𝙙𝙚𝙛𝙜𝙝𝙞𝙟𝙠𝙡𝙢𝙣𝙤𝙥𝙦𝙧𝙨𝙩𝙪𝙫𝙬𝙭𝙮𝙯
𝙰𝙱𝙲𝙳𝙴𝙵𝙶𝙷𝙸𝙹𝙺𝙻𝙼𝙽𝙾𝙿𝚀𝚁𝚂𝚃𝚄𝚅𝚆𝚇𝚈𝚉 𝚊𝚋𝚌𝚍𝚎𝚏𝚐𝚑𝚒𝚓𝚔𝚕𝚖𝚗𝚘𝚙𝚚𝚛𝚜𝚝𝚞𝚟𝚠𝚡𝚢𝚣
ＡＢＣＤＥＦＧＨＩＪＫＬＭＮＯＰＱＲＳＴＵＶＷＸＹＺ ａｂｃｄｅｆｇｈｉｊｋｌｍｎｏｐｑｒｓｔｕｖｗｘｙｚ
⒜⒝⒞⒟⒠⒡⒢⒣⒤⒥⒦⒧⒨⒩⒪⒫⒬⒭⒮⒯⒰⒱⒲⒳⒴⒵ ⒜⒝⒞⒟⒠⒡⒢⒣⒤⒥⒦⒧⒨⒩⒪⒫⒬⒭⒮⒯⒰⒱⒲⒳⒴⒵
ⒶⒷⒸⒹⒺⒻⒼⒽⒾⒿⓀⓁⓂⓃⓄⓅⓆⓇⓈⓉⓊⓋⓌⓍⓎⓏ ⓐⓑⓒⓓⓔⓕⓖⓗⓘⓙⓚⓛⓜⓝⓞⓟⓠⓡⓢⓣⓤⓥⓦⓧⓨⓩ
①②③④⑤⑥⑦⑧⑨⑩⑪⑫⑬⑭⑮⑯⑰⑱⑲⑳
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Ā ā Ă ă Ą ą Ĉ ĉ Ċ ċ Č č Ď ď Đ đ Ē ē Ĕ ĕ Ė ė Ę ę Ě ě Ĝ ĝ Ğ ğ Ġ ġ Ģ ģ Ĥ ĥ Ħ ħ Ĩ ĩ Ī ī Ĭ ĭ Į į İ ı IJ ij Ĵ ĵ Ķ ķ ĸ Ĺ ĺ Ļ ļ Ľ ľ Ŀ ŀ Ł ł Ņ ņ Ň ň ʼn Ŋ ŋ Ō ō Ŏ ŏ Ő ő Œ œ Ŕ ŕ Ŗ ŗ Ř ř Ś ś Ŝ ŝ Ş ş Š š Ţ ţ Ť ť Ŧ ŧ Ū ū Ŭ ŭ Ů ů Ű ű Ų ų Ÿ Ż ż Ž ž ſ ƒ Ʒ DŽ Dž dž LJ Lj lj NJ Nj nj ǝ Ǟ ǟ Ǥ ǥ Ǧ ǧ Ǩ ǩ Ǯ ǯ DZ Dz dz Ǵ ǵ Ǻ ǻ Ǽ ǽ Ǿ ǿ ɐ ɹ ɼ ʇ ʌ ʍ ʎ ʒ
Ḃ ḃ Ḋ ḋ Ḑ ḑ Ḟ ḟ Ḱ ḱ Ṁ ṁ Ṗ ṗ Ṡ ṡ Ṫ ṫ Ὅ

I don't think that will work. Let's say there are ten different glyphs that look like the letter A, then all a parser has to do is look up what glyph corresponds to to unscramble the message.

For example, the unscrambler could look like this:
char scrabled = getchar();char unscrambled;if scrambled in [𝐀, 𝐴, 𝑨, 𝒜, 𝓐, 𝔄, 𝔸, 𝕬, 𝖠, ...] unscrambled = A;else if scrambled in [𝐁, 𝐵, ...] unscrabmled = B;else if ...
You get the idea. Adding diacritics just adds a bit of overhead to the process, but that's it.