phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] Asymmetric proof-of-work based on the Generalized Birthday problem

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 00:05:19 +0200
From: Dmitry Khovratovich <khovratovich@...il.com>
To: "discussions@...sword-hashing.net" <discussions@...sword-hashing.net>
Subject: Re: [PHC] Asymmetric proof-of-work based on the Generalized Birthday problem

We did not test the implementation on all listed T(n,k), but for your
second question (for constant ratio n/(k+1)) I can definitely answer that
the speed is linear in n.

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 11:40 PM, Ben Harris <mail@...rr.is> wrote:

> On 29 September 2015 at 19:28, Dmitry Khovratovich <khovratovich@...il.com
> > wrote:
>
>>  For example, the proof for 700-MB memory is 148 bytes long. The
>> implementation exists but is not optimized.
>>
>>
> Looks awesome. Did you consider including the actual run-time in Table I?
> I'm curious how the run-time varies with n for semi-constant T(n, k).
>



-- 
Best regards,
Dmitry Khovratovich

Content of type "text/html" skipped