Re: Notes... The case for an open client

> RSA has a PUBLISHED list of pseudo-challenges, where they tell you the 
> keys (which were probably generated in the same way as the real 
> challenges). Look at the run lengths on those. Are they conclusive?

I have, and I have used them ... notice them in the test harness I posted?

> Take up the challenge, or your arguments are just a lot of talk.

hmmm ... what challenge? Your diversion from my interest to search the
space 100% non-sequentially just because I have before? You still haven't
proven that the key was generated randomly, and just assume that the
deterministic pseudo-random number generator RSA used doesn't have any
n-order artifacts that might interact with the key generation algorithm
in a way that searching by run length might yeild an advantage over
sequential?

You completely ignored the challenge to prove that a non-sequential search
was any worse mathmatically ... or that the deterministic pseudo-random
algorithm RSA used was perfectly random and not flawed.

I admit my choice is strictly personal preference based on intuition that
you do not accept ... so stop being god here, demanding that I conform to
your highly structured point of view.

If as you say the key generation is in effect a purely random key, then
it doesn't matter in what order the key space is searched. In fact, if
I am to search independently of d.net, there is a darn good reason to
use a different search algorithm so that I don't spend the next 10 years
operating in d.net hidden wake.

John
_______________________________________________
Hardware mailing list
Hardware-Ra3b/QYEcJ3d140v2zMXi0fjHoOT/h/[email protected]
http://lists.distributed.net/mailman/listinfo/hardware