Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on February 13, 2014, 09:18:09 AM

Quote from: Kosta# on February 13, 2014, 09:10:15 AM

The hardest ECC scheme (publicly) broken to date had a 112-bit key for the prime field case and a 109-bit key for the binary field case. So 64-bit obviously won't do and at the same time it's a long way until 512-bit keys will be needed, if ever.

I meant we could use four 64-bit numbers to represent 256 bits. Regarding the long way until 512-bit keys will be needed - I want to implement RSA with 4096 bits.

Edit: Not everyone has hardware with AVX support, why not 128 bits at least/most?

It is well-known that RSA needs much longer keys to achieve the same crypto strength. Ethereum uses ECC, and I was talking about ECC, so it is not clear why RSA is relevant here (or ROT13, for that matter).