[RC5] new release candidate available.

Victor A. Wagner, Jr. vawjr at rudbek.com
Mon Nov 25 18:25:31 EST 2002


actually, yes.  there are many participants who submit only on workdays (I 
gather they're machines at the office) but casual inspection of the records 
for the past few years will show there is always a huge Monday kick and a 
weekend lull
At Monday 2002/11/25 11:12, you wrote:
>Yesterday's count is what's available. Come back tomorrow. Do you think
>18,000 participants were shut off over the weekend? Even assuming 1/3 of the
>participants did not return stat units yesterday still gives you less than
>10,000 active participants. So that doesn't change or discredit anything I
>said.
>
>Thanks.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Victor A. Wagner, Jr. [mailto:vawjr at rudbek.com]
>Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 9:14 AM
>To: rc5 at lists.distributed.net
>Subject: RE: [RC5] new release candidate available.
>
>
>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.
> >
> >Timothy
> >
> >----- 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
> >purpose
> > > 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
>--
>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