[RC5] RC5 question

Richard Menedetter ricsi at gmx.at
Sat Oct 4 14:25:33 EDT 2003


Hi Daniel!

03 Oct 2003, Daniel Quintiliani <coredump0 at mercurylink.net> wrote:

 DQ> I knew the likelihood of me finding ET,
But the thing was that you did analyze real data.
So potentially you could find something revolutional.
And you did help scientists by doing the work for them.

With RC5 you are searching for a needle in a haystack.
You exactly know that the needle is there, and how it looks.
And now somebody starts to pour more hay there. (in case of rc5-72 they make
the pile 256 times bigger than the rc5-64 pile)

This does not change anything.
You know exactly how long it takes to look at a single piece of hay.
And therefor you can calculate how long it will take to take a look at half of
the pile. (statistically you should find the needle there)
What point is there if the hole thing doesn't provide mankind with new
information ??

In the times of idiotic american crypto regulation it was a good thing (tm) to
tackle rc5-64 ... but what benefit is there now ?

 DQ> I'm just suggesting that 128-bit would be more fun than 72-bit since
 DQ> it would be more relevant today.
????
It took us many years to solve rc5-64

rc5-128 is 2^64 times harder.
That is 18446744073709551616 times harder.
For me this is not fun, this is wasting of precious ressources that could be
much better used to do something which is fun, _AND_ benefits mankind.

 DQ> -Dan

CU, Ricsi

-- 
|~)o _ _o  Richard Menedetter <ricsi at gmx.at> {ICQ: 7659421} (PGP)
|~\|(__\|  -=> Complaints? Write them here legibly [] <- <=-


More information about the rc5 mailing list