0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.
We'll need way, way over 900142 computers to get it in a reasonable amount of time Edit: Assuming Deep Thought's number is right, of course.
Quote from: calcdude84se on October 09, 2010, 10:03:51 pmWe'll need way, way over 900142 computers to get it in a reasonable amount of time Edit: Assuming Deep Thought's number is right, of course.Define "reasonable."Also, this big of an RSA key has never been cracked, IIRC. It might be something someone with lots of resources may want to help with outside the calculator world.
Quote from: SirCmpwn on November 02, 2010, 05:52:07 pmQuote from: calcdude84se on October 09, 2010, 10:03:51 pmWe'll need way, way over 900142 computers to get it in a reasonable amount of time Edit: Assuming Deep Thought's number is right, of course.Define "reasonable."Also, this big of an RSA key has never been cracked, IIRC. It might be something someone with lots of resources may want to help with outside the calculator world.The people with "lots of resources" would be the ones who cracked the current record 768 bits. Reasonable, meaning that in 20 years after a different calc comes out, we might find a factor.
Quote from: graphmastur on November 02, 2010, 05:57:14 pmQuote from: SirCmpwn on November 02, 2010, 05:52:07 pmQuote from: calcdude84se on October 09, 2010, 10:03:51 pmWe'll need way, way over 900142 computers to get it in a reasonable amount of time Edit: Assuming Deep Thought's number is right, of course.Define "reasonable."Also, this big of an RSA key has never been cracked, IIRC. It might be something someone with lots of resources may want to help with outside the calculator world.The people with "lots of resources" would be the ones who cracked the current record 768 bits. Reasonable, meaning that in 20 years after a different calc comes out, we might find a factor.A calc with a 16384-bit RSA. That would be fun So, what's our best chance? Find a new algorithm?