[RC5] new release candidate available.

Victor A. Wagner, Jr. vawjr at rudbek.com
Mon Nov 25 10:14:15 EST 2002

Picking a Sunday for claiming current participants is folly.
At Monday 2002/11/25 09:30, you wrote:
>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.
> >>>snip
>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

Victor A. Wagner Jr.      http://rudbek.com
The five most dangerous words in the English language:
               "There oughta be a law"

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