Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on February 14, 2014, 08:55:54 PM

Quote from: ChuckOne on February 14, 2014, 08:39:53 PM

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on February 14, 2014, 08:13:40 PM

Quote from: ChuckOne on February 14, 2014, 07:53:03 PM

Not, if the runtime for calculating a sig is dependent on the number of bits of the payload.

It is a common misconception that basic operations are in O(1), but that's wrong. Even addition and multiplication of larger numbers take longer than of smaller numbers. The same hodls for sig function.

I like the conceptual idea of having set-based transactions because set-based thinking is one of the principle of modern computer science.

What I was trying to explain to you was that you should not make not unproven statements.
Show me the runtime complexity of the sig function in terms of payload length and we'll see.

NRS signs SHA256 of a message.

1 signature takes 100 times more CPU ticks than SHA256(32_random_bytes). Signing of a transaction that is 100 times longer ~ 2 ordinary signatures.

Not sure, I got it.

The runtime complexity is still O(n)? But the factory in between is 100? (n = number of bits)

Complexity of signing is O(1).

That is plain wrong. The more bits you have to sign the longer signing takes. The question is: how long in terms of the input length.