Hi Ivan,
I just wanted to say that I think it would be great if you would
implement a version of your proposed two-threaded solution. I do not
have a firm grasp of all the programming details, but it does seem that
the overall idea is converging, and that some time soon the best way to
judge
Marcel,
I just wanted to say that I think it would be great if you would
implement a version of your proposed two-threaded solution. I do not
have a firm grasp of all the programming details, but it does seem
that the overall idea is converging, and that some time soon the best
way to jud
I think we would get the same result if we started a LoopingCall that
executes process_deferred_queue with an interval of, say, 100 ms:
http://twistedmatrix.com/documents/8.2.0/api/twisted.internet.task.LoopingCall.html
This should work since the runUntilCurrent method runs through the
waitin
Marcel Keller writes:
>> You're talking about this two-threaded solution as if it is something
>> that exists and will solve all our problems...
>
> No, for now, it's just an imagination in my mind, a proposal for the
> next meeting, and a strong feeling that it's the right way to do it.
Yeah, I
You're talking about this two-threaded solution as if it is something
that exists and will solve all our problems...
No, for now, it's just an imagination in my mind, a proposal for the
next meeting, and a strong feeling that it's the right way to do it.
But I still haven't seen it, and I wo
Marcel Keller writes:
Indeed we did not know (well I didn't) back then that the data was
not sent immediately by Twisted, and I was starting to think
yesterday whether the hack would make a difference. Lucky for us, it
apparently does :)
>>> That is not the only problem. To fr
Indeed we did not know (well I didn't) back then that the data was
not sent immediately by Twisted, and I was starting to think
yesterday whether the hack would make a difference. Lucky for us, it
apparently does :)
That is not the only problem. To free the memory of the shares and to
send out fu
Marcel Keller writes:
>> I think we would get the same result if we started a LoopingCall that
>> executes process_deferred_queue with an interval of, say, 100 ms:
>>
>>
>> http://twistedmatrix.com/documents/8.2.0/api/twisted.internet.task.LoopingCall.html
>>
>> This should work since the runU
Wow, this is nice! I had sort of given up finding the cause of this :-(
Thank you for looking at this, and just in time for my presentation at
PKC in 10 days :-)
You're welcome. :-)
--- /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/twisted/internet/base.py 2008-07-29
22:13:54.0 +0200
+++ interne
That is not the only problem. To free the memory of the shares and to
send out further shares, also the incoming shares must be processed as
soon as possible. This is even trickier because incoming shares might
trigger code that calls functions sending out data, which activates
the Twisted reac
Marcel Keller writes:
>> Indeed we did not know (well I didn't) back then that the data was
>> not sent immediately by Twisted, and I was starting to think
>> yesterday whether the hack would make a difference. Lucky for us, it
>> apparently does :)
>
> That is not the only problem. To free the m
Marcel Keller writes:
> Hello friends of VIFF,
>
> I've now run the benchmark of actively secure multiplications with
> hyperinvertible matrices together with my hack. Here are my results
> (column 1 and 2) compared to the results in the paper "Asynchronous
> Multiparty Computation: Theory and Im
Citat af Marcel Keller :
Indeed we did not know (well I didn't) back then that the data was
not sent immediately by Twisted, and I was starting to think
yesterday whether the hack would make a difference. Lucky for us,
it apparently does :)
That is not the only problem. To free the memory
Indeed we did not know
(well I didn't) back then that the data was not sent immediately by
Twisted, and I was starting to think yesterday whether the hack would
make a difference. Lucky for us, it apparently does :)
That is not the only problem. To free the memory of the shares and to
send ou
Citat af Ivan Bjerre Damgård :
Very interesting!
So if things are as they seem here, the explanation for the strange
behavior would be that the precomputing phase, being more involved
than the online phase, is punished by Twisted (when unhacked). And
this is of course not included in the
Very interesting!
So if things are as they seem here, the explanation for the strange
behavior would be that the precomputing phase, being more involved
than the online phase, is punished by Twisted (when unhacked). And
this is of course not included in the analysis in the paper.
regards,
Hello friends of VIFF,
I've now run the benchmark of actively secure multiplications with
hyperinvertible matrices together with my hack. Here are my results
(column 1 and 2) compared to the results in the paper "Asynchronous
Multiparty Computation: Theory and Implementation" (column 3 and 4):
17 matches
Mail list logo
