[RC5] new release candidate available.

Jason Hartzell jhartzell at arcataassoc.com
Mon Nov 25 08:30:34 EST 2002

Some good points Mr. Marsh, but my view just isn't the same.

Yesterday, 6,170 people participated in OGR-25 and 7 in OGR-24. On the final
day of RC5-64, 25,739 people participated. Do you really think that the
release of RC5-72 will bring back 20,000 daily participants? Of course it
won't. Do you think, if RC5-64 and RC5-72 had been running concurrently,
that a portion of those would never have quit? How many participants were
lost just because they had OGR=0 in their ini file and they aren't going to
bother going back to change anything. 

Besides, I don't agree with the notion that the 'whole point' was to prove
how quickly RC5-64 could be completed. If it were, the project was a
complete failure. The purpose was to prove that it COULD BE DONE. Period.
With that, it was not a failure. And starting the RC5-72 project sometime
after RC5-64 got to 75% or 80% of the keyspace was exhausted would have made
a lot more sense than this. Remember, we are two months past RC5-64 now...

-----Original Message-----
From: Timothy Marsh [mailto:Timothy.Marsh at usm.edu]
Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2002 6:43 AM
To: rc5 at lists.distributed.net
Subject: Re: [RC5] new release candidate available.

I know the purpose of dnet is not to break encryption, but rather to advance
distributed computing.  But the purpose of the RC5 project is to crack the
code in as little time as possible, which has been seen as a way of
supporting distributed computing.  The whole point is to show how quickly it
can be done.  As someone pointed out a while back on the efficiency of
solving these types of problems, there are two important things to keep in
mind when you are trying to finish a project in a short amount of time (not
necessarily earliest).  First you should not get too distracted, focus your
work as much as possible on one project.  For a variety of reasons, dnet has
also provided OGR, but I really believe that adding two RC5 contests at the
same time would be counterproductive.  Second, wait until computing power is
powerful enough to accomplish the task in a reasonable amount of time.  You
may be thinking of this time as wasting a few months of processing time, but
if RC5 72 had been released a couple years ago, I imagine the work done on
it then would have taken a quarter of the time to do now, but the work taken
away from the 64 project would have been very significant.  Much more
significant than the work that is being "wasted" right now because people
don't like OGR.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jason Hartzell" <jhartzell at arcataassoc.com>
To: <rc5 at lists.distributed.net>
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 5:58 PM
Subject: RE: [RC5] new release candidate available.

> I was talking to a friend (and former d.net participant) about this the
> other day. My thought was that RC5 project #1 and #2 should be running
> concurrently. It didn't really matter if RC5 project #1 took a bit longer
> just because processor time was split between the two. Remember, the
> of d.net is NOT to break encryption.


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