From: "Mark M." <markm@omni.voicenet.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 10:12:46 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Who needs time vaults anyway?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.91.951111130652.15607B-100000@chivalry>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.91.951111181038.160A-100000@localhost>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Sat, 11 Nov 1995, Simon Spero wrote:

> Depending on how fine grained you want the release to be, you could also 
> take the inverse of Moore's law, work out how big a key you need to have 
> it unbreakable in less than the desired time, add in whatever fudge 
> factors you feel like based on how much it would be worth to the opponent 
> to get early access, then lock up the secret and throw away the key. 
> 
> Simon
> 

The main problem I would see with this scheme is that it uses Moore's law.
I do not think that Moore's law will hold true forever.  Microchips are
becoming so small that they will eventually reach a point where they will
not be able to be any smaller without facing quantum uncertainty.  At
this point, either the increase in computer speed will stop or something
like parallel processing or quantum computers will become feasible and the
amount of compute time will be very little.  Using this type of scheme
might be usefull now, but most likely, a new law about increasing computer
power will have to be developed in the next twenty years.
   
--
`finger -l markm@omni.voicenet.com` for public key and Geek Code
Public Key/1024: 0xF9B22BA5 BD 24 D0 8E 3C BB 53 47  20 54 FA 56 00 22 58 D5
Homepage URL:http://www.voicenet.com/~markm/