[RC5] Removing Stats?

Jason Hartzell jhartzell at arcataassoc.com
Fri Sep 27 10:25:11 EDT 2002


>> > yeah, you're the only one
>>
>> He isn't.

And I knew I wouldn't be. Some people think that passes for wit. Sad.

>> Removing stats since 07/14 is cheating, nothing else than that.
>
>Cheating? Who is getting cheated?

Anyone who DONATED their time, effort and cycles to distributed.net since
07/14.

>
>> The project did end yesterday, because the announcement was made that
>> the key was found.
>
>The goal of this project was to find the key. Therefore the projected 
>ended when its goal had been achieved and the key found. This was 
>14/07/2002. If the goal of the project had been to produce the stats, 
>then you might well be justified in feeling cheated.

At best, the project ended when the key was validated by RSA labs, which was
NOT on 07/14. Either way, I can't really care about the reasons WHY
announcements were postponed until the end of September.  I'll make it as
simple as I can, here is a link to the RSA Labs announcement:

http://www.rsasecurity.com/news/releases/pr.asp?doc_id=1400

You tell me the date that is on the top of this press release, and I'll tell
you the date the project ended. Ever actually worked on an IT implementation
project? Do you quit paying people the day the project is 'done', or the day
they finish working for you? With the nature of this work, stats are
essentially the pay. Personally, I will NOT participate in future
distributed.net projects if my stats, the work I GAVE to distributed.net, is
not properly recorded. I GAVE work to d.net on the RC5-64 project up through
09/26.
>
>> Some people did RC5 for fun or for stats, and d.net used those peoples'
>> cycles, and doesn't want to give credit for that since 07/14 now. Now
>> how sick is that?
>
>It's not sick at all. Would you be whining if the key had been found 2 
>days ago and they were removing the last two days worth of stats?

Probably not, because the time frame would have been more reasonable. People
could understand why it would take two days to submit the key to RSA labs,
to have it verified, and to prepare a press release. I fully expected that I
would submit a small amount of wasted keys. But well over two months worth?
>
>You seem to be implying that DNet are doing something which will be to 
>their gain by trimming back the stats to the date the project actually 
>finished. What would that be then?

Well, then why trim it back? What it does give, down the road, is the false
perception that the project ended on 07/14 and makes some very minor
adjustments to the number of days worked to complete the project and
percentage of keyspace checked.

>You appear to have lost track of the core reason this project was created. 
>It was created to use distributed computing to try a brute force approach 
>to cracking the RC5-64 encryption standard. It was *not* created for 
>people to have dick-size-wars over how many blocks their machine(s) can 
>crack.

It has nothing to do with dick size wars. Stats are THE recognition that
d.net gives to the participants. I do expect the work I gave to be
recognized.

--
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