I tend to support this idea, but I think in this case the sub-puzzles must be
chained to deal with parallel solving.
Something like the following:
Puzzle_data[0] = cookie
Puzzle_data[1] = Puzzle_solution[0] | cookie
Puzzle_data[2] = Puzzle_solution[1] | cookie
...
Puzzle_data[n] = Puzzle_solution[n-1] | cookie
Or probably someone could suggest more clever construction?
I’m not really against this, but is parallel solving really an issue?
It does give an advantage to an 8-core desktop or 16-core server over a 2-core
laptop.
OTOH it might mitigate the power disparity between smartphones and laptops
because
phones have 4, 6, or 8 cores, while most laptops tend to have 2.
The primary goal of sub-puzzling (as I see it) is not to make puzzle equally
hard for all clients, but to make puzzle hardness more predictable.
As far as I understand you got the figures from your previous message
by sequential solutions of a given number of puzzles, didn't you?
Did you experimented with parallel puzzle solving on multicore CPUs?
Probably the effect of sub-puzzling in this case would be a bit different.
It's interesting to compare the results.
Yoav
Regards,
Valery.
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
