Joseph Ashwood writes: > Bernstein's proposal does have an impact, but I do not believ that 3x the > key size is necessary > I believe Bernstein's proposal results in the necessity of a keysize of > approximately 1.5 times what was required before > I believe that there are further similar advances available to the > algorithms involved that can push this to approximately 2x > > I have reached these considerations through a very long thought process that > involved digging through old textbooks on electrical engineering,
Wow, really, Joe? You went through a long thought process? You dug through old textbooks? That's very impressive. At least, it would be if you were still a schoolboy. Out here in the real world we have this crazy idea called "evidence". When someone makes a claim, like that Bernstein's ideas mean that we need to increase keysize by 1.5, we like to know WHY. We like to see some reason why we might believe a claim like this. Here's a hint, Joe. Telling people about all the hard work you went through to come up with these amazing conclusions is WORTHLESS. You want to impress us? We don't want to hear about your tireless hours studying old text books. We want to see your results. If you have determined that we need keys 1.5 times bigger, then show us why. If you have a real analysis of what it would take to build Bernstein's machine, how it would work in a real problem, what the parameters are which are hidden by Bernstein's o(1) fudge factors, then prove it. No one has done this yet. You have now joined the club of people who claim to have done the math and determined that his machine will work, but who for some reason won't print anything about their results. What is it about the Bernstein machine that leads people to make claims that they won't back up?
