[RC5] new release candidate available.

blitz blitz at macronet.net
Sun Nov 24 05:06:35 EST 2002


It would make a lot of us feel better if the OGR client wasn't 
damaged....never the less I run it...until we get something better to work on.
The problem is, not all of us want to, nor are appreciative of our cycles 
going to a flawed project.
This presents a set of problems that is simple, do we waste the volunteer 
talent to correct 'this' project, (OGR) or let them concentrate on the next 
one?

I'll keep running the fractionally good OGR and await the new client. We 
all have a snowball's chance in hell of cracking the code in any endeavor. 
Like the lottery, "HEY you never win"..
This is a decision that must be made at the individual level.
That's MY decision, yours may vary...
I'm in this for the long run, and will stick with it for the interim, 
awaiting a proper replacement, and the bad cycles be dammed...
Again, your position is your own...if you think your cycles can be put to 
better use, then move on to what floats your boat.
Lets give the crew a chance to write proper code and then this will all be 
moot.
I don't care the solution may be 256 years out, I didn't plan on selling or 
donating my cycles to anything anyway, I'm just a curious participant.

Distributed computing is being used (I HEAR) for distributed spamming, (NOT 
d.net I'm assured) I don't want my cycles in 'that' particular 
project...one must make their own decisions for your own personal likes and 
dislikes. There are then obviously much worse projects than a few wasted 
cycles in a flawed client.

Hang in there, it's going to be all right soon...






At 16:07 11/23/02 -0600, you wrote:

> > OGR is indeed boring.
>
>
>Think about RC5-72 -- on paper it is 256 times as hard as RC5-64.
>And it took YEARS for distributed.net to "solve" RC5-64, and all
>that was accomplished was to decode __one__ message.  (In the
>meantime, in the real world, there are millions of encoded
>messages being generated!)
>
>At least with OGR (if the software were "smart" and bug-free) the
>results should allow a definite statement of where "good" rulers
>are, and where they aren't.  That to me is finding "knowledge".
>
>"Proof" that distributed computing could in practice be used for
>message decoding was provided by RC5-56.   Since this ability had
>now been demonstrated, I will claim that RC5-64 was a "useless"
>expenditure of electricity and computing cycles.  To me, to focus
>on RC5-72 is completely misguided (and might well get boring as
>the years go by).
>
>mikus
>
>--
>To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe rc5' to majordomo at lists.distributed.net
>rc5-digest subscribers replace rc5 with rc5-digest

--
To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe rc5' to majordomo at lists.distributed.net
rc5-digest subscribers replace rc5 with rc5-digest

--
To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe rc5' to majordomo at lists.distributed.net
rc5-digest subscribers replace rc5 with rc5-digest



More information about the rc5 mailing list