[RC5] RC5 question

Daniel Quintiliani coredump0 at mercurylink.net
Fri Oct 3 23:21:30 EDT 2003

On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 22:48:03 -0300, Décio Luiz Gazzoni Filho 
<decio at revistapcs.com.br> wrote:

> While the argument is valid, I think it's assuming Moore's law will hold 
> in a century is overly optimistic. Sure, there will be breakthroughs, 
> maybe quantum computing, maybe DNA computing, maybe some other buzzword. 
> But the fact is, we're going to see radical changes (like quantum 
> computing), not the evolutionary changes that we're seeing today, because 
> they can't go on for much longer. Think of it this way -- by the time we 
> reach single-atom transistors, they'll probably not abide by the 
> principles that we use to design electronics today. But if Moore's Law is 
> to hold, we'll have to reach this milestone before a hundred years.

Moore's Law may not hold, but the nature of business is to always produce 
something better and faster and more improved for more profits. The 
industry depends on this to survive. Intel will find some way to make it 
faster or they will lose money to some other company who finds a way to 
make it faster. So there will be something in Moore's Law's place in the 

> Another point to take home is that 128-bit keys won't be exactly relevant 
> a century from now. Do you think the cracking of some sort of ``Enigma on 
> steroids'' would be relevant today, even if it'd make sense in the WWII 
> timeframe? And it's only been 60 years from then. So I think it's better 
> to stick around with short term contests.
> Décio



More information about the rc5 mailing list