[rc5] Re: Tardy blocks (was Random keyblocks)

Marko Presburger nimrod at EUnet.yu
Tue Aug 26 19:08:18 EDT 1997

Hash: SHA1

At 10:40 AM 8/26/97 -0500, you wrote:
>At 08:56 AM 8/26/97 -0600, you wrote:
>>        I haven't really been discussing handing out tardy blocks instead 
>>     of handing out unassigned blocks.  I've been suggesting tardy blocks 
>>     instead of random blocks, with a lot of little details and caveats.
>Nice thread. We need to work on the definition of "tardy".
>Is this the def?
>  tardy = assigned but not returned
>I don't think that the keyspace tracing information contains
>any time/date data so we are stuck with this. If the assigned
>keyspace database _does_ have dating info then we've got a lot
>of choices. Realize that IF some form of an algorithm was used to
>allocate the blocks, IF our "tardy allocator" can follow the
>same algorithm through the keyspace and re-allocate any of the
>un-checked blocks that it finds, then this counts as "history" or
>"date/time" info. Basically perfect for our situation.
>>        So to take your analysis into the picture.  Say x% of the keyspace 
>>     is checked.  y% of the blocks are tardy. there is no chance that the 
>>        From our assumption of uniform distribution, we can derive that (on 

>>     average) 50% of each tardy block has been checked.  So y/2% of the 
>>     keyspace has been assigned but not checked.  So x% of all work on 
>>     random blocks is useless and y/2% of all work on tardy blocks is 
>>     useless.
>Actually if the "random" is truly random throughout the keyspace,
>then (x + y/2)% of the random block work is wasted. If we don't have
>any data on tardy-ness, then the y/2 figure will have to be modified
>because some of the assigned blocks will be returned. So it will be
>something like y/z% wasted effort on any tardy blocks, where z<2 and
>as we exhaust the keyspace and accumulate tardy blocks z -> 2.
>>        Therefore, if x > y/2, then it is better to work on tardy blocks 
>>     than to work on random blocks since the expectation of success is 
>>     greater.
>No, not because the expectation of success being greater, rather
>the waste-age of work is lower.
>>  Conversely, if x < y/2, it is better to work on random 
>>     blocks (since so little of the keyspace has been checked).
>>        Now, for the current effort, x is much greater than y > y/2, so it 
>>     is better to work on tardy blocks.  Of course, no work is wasted on an 

>How do you know? Perhaps y > 1/2? I have no data at all on the number
>of allocated blocks.
>  Marc Sissom               | Design Engineer
>  DNA Enterprises, Inc.     | Phone: 972/644-3301
>  269 W. Renner Parkway     | Fax: 972/644-6338
>  Richardson, Texas 75080   | http://www.dnaent.com
>To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo at llamas.net with 'unsubscribe rc5' in 
the body.

BTW how will we know when the correct key is found. Will our machine tell us 
or will it just report back to Bovine. The point is that if it just reports 
back to Bovine and does not let the client know the right key could have been 
already bypassed and lost in a tardy block. Especially if you are running the 
personal proxy. I had a machine go down which was running the personal proxy 
and lost all blocks both finished and unfinished. Even if the client reports 
it you could have a power outage while the machine was untended and the 
information of finding the correct key would be lost.
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv


Marko Presburger
nimrod at eunet.yu
Phone Home: +381-11-629-042
Phone Work: +381 11 672-839
To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo at llamas.net with 'unsubscribe rc5' in the body.

More information about the rc5 mailing list