On 2014-05-15 18:25, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
So, I can put you down as solidly in the eco-catastrophe camp, then?
:)
Oh, definitely. Unless our understanding of computing at the physical
limits drastically changes, I think blunt-force cryptanalysis is way
better than brute-force.
Decryptio
Incidentally, we went from 100 nuclear warheads to 3 to 100,000[3].
So, I can put you down as solidly in the eco-catastrophe camp, then? :)
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
I notice that the Wikipedia article refers here to "thermodynamically
reversible" which is perhaps not the same thing as computationally
reversible. So I looked up "thermodynamically reversible" and found
At the level we're talking about, the distinction between
thermodynamics and computation
On 2014-05-15 14:30, gnupg-users@gnupg.org wrote:
Leo called it 10^5, Rob called it 10^3. If you save 63 bitflips on a
total of a million, that doesn't change the final numbers in the
least.
Pull out some hairs and you still have a beard: 10^3 - 63 = 10^3.
Incidentally, we went from 100 nuclear
On 2014-05-14 21:40, David Shaw wrote:
On May 14, 2014, at 9:35 AM, Sin Trenton wrote:
Hello everyone,
Just out of curiousity, are there any plans for including Threefish into GnuPG?
Or does it have to be incorprorated into the OpenPGP standard first and *then*
perhaps baked into GnuPG?
Ye
On 5/15/2014 8:30 AM, gnupg-users@gnupg.org wrote:
> The save of 64 bits to 1 bit loses you 6 bits exponential complexity,
> the increase of the expected number of tries increases it again by 1
> bit, so you have saved 2^5 = 32 = 10^1.5 on the numbers Rob gives. When
> I'm quickly reading through t
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 07:31:26PM -0400, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> On 5/14/2014 6:11 PM, Leo Gaspard wrote:
[snip]
> > * You state it is a lower bound on the energy consumed/generated by
> > bruteforcing. Having a closer look at the Wikipedia page, I just
> > found this sentence: "If no informat
