The example provided was as extreme as I could get
1) assumes 1 key per FLOP (more like 1 key per 80,000 integer ops)
2) assumes moore's law will continue for 40 years (20 if we are lucky)
3) assumes 1 super computer per human on the planet (really)
Even that would be insufficient. Yet you still stick with a belief that 10^70 is realistic. There are only 10^50 atoms on the planet. Even assuming terrahertz scale processor you would need to convert the entire planet into chips and then magically process billions of operations per atom. What is going to power this? Where are all the organic life going to go?
Feel free to have the last (delusional) word. I won't see it because it isn't worth my time anymore. You can have your own opinions but you can't have your own facts. 128 bit keys are beyond brute force with classical computing. It doesn't matter if it is today, next decade, next millennium, or using a perfect computer and all the matter and energy in our solar system.
1) assumes 1 key per FLOP (more like 1 key per 80,000 integer ops)
2) assumes moore's law will continue for 40 years (20 if we are lucky)
3) assumes 1 super computer per human on the planet (really)
Even that would be insufficient. Yet you still stick with a belief that 10^70 is realistic. There are only 10^50 atoms on the planet. Even assuming terrahertz scale processor you would need to convert the entire planet into chips and then magically process billions of operations per atom. What is going to power this? Where are all the organic life going to go?
Feel free to have the last (delusional) word. I won't see it because it isn't worth my time anymore. You can have your own opinions but you can't have your own facts. 128 bit keys are beyond brute force with classical computing. It doesn't matter if it is today, next decade, next millennium, or using a perfect computer and all the matter and energy in our solar system.
He seems to have f*cked off now; strange!
I know this is not thread-related but D&T I fucking love you man. I have no idea how you manage to respond to people like this without losing it and each response seems to contain more damning evidence than the last... Unbelievable.
Anyway thanks, and kuroman no offense but you are the most stupid "educated person" I have encountered for a while on these forums. And welcome to ignore
Fucked off? I took his own assumption, proved him wrong as you can check for your self (in the post above the one you quoted and HE doesn't disagree with anything I said but of course it seems that you've missed that), and then he posted the above saying that the numbers HE took are optimistic, so he backed of, please explain to me how can you argue with someone, that tells you lets assume this and that, and when you prove with his own calculus, assumptions and numbers that he is wrong and that his argument works in my favors and goes with everything I said before, then he just backs off!, saying "oh noes, but things don't go the way I presented before" . No offense to you but the stupid person here is the one not able to gasp this fact, if I go trough the trouble to prove him (and you by the same occasion) wrong again he'll just again back off and say " but what I said is not really accurate, we have to take this and that into consideration aswell.
And as they say in Africa : "Only a fool tests the water with both feet."