->The cost reaches the millions for 64 bits, and ~$165 trillion for 128 bits:
meanwhile 512 bits costs $8
But you just keep believing 128 bits costs $165 trillion ROFL.
>> ops(2 * 16)
>121106.42245436447
>> ops(2 * 32)
>38178499.24944067
>> ops(2 * 32) / ops(2 * 16)
>315.24751929508244
So if ops(216) costs $8, then ops(232) costs $8 * ops(232) / ops(216) = $2521.98. Far more than $8^2.
And I said $256, because as an "embarrassingly parallel" algorithm you get significant benefits from cached results (quickly discard entire number fields that were previously calculated).
Which, btw, is how they break 512bit DH in less than a minute.
> So if ops(2*16) costs $8, then ops(232) costs $8 ops(232) / ops(216) = $2521.98. Far more than $8^2.
> The cost reaches the millions for 64 bits, and ~$165 trillion for 128 bits:
Your answer
> meanwhile 512 bits costs $8
> But you just keep believing 128 bits costs $165 trillion ROFL.
At this point the only conclusion that doesn't involve questioning your sanity is just to conclude that you don't know anything about math and you struggle even reading mathematical notation (“if <> then <>” being the most basic construct one can learn about math, and you still struggle with it!).
meanwhile 512 bits costs $8
But you just keep believing 128 bits costs $165 trillion ROFL.
>> ops(2 * 16)
>121106.42245436447
>> ops(2 * 32)
>38178499.24944067
>> ops(2 * 32) / ops(2 * 16)
>315.24751929508244
So if ops(216) costs $8, then ops(232) costs $8 * ops(232) / ops(216) = $2521.98. Far more than $8^2.
And I said $256, because as an "embarrassingly parallel" algorithm you get significant benefits from cached results (quickly discard entire number fields that were previously calculated).
Which, btw, is how they break 512bit DH in less than a minute.
Also still a lot closer than your >$165 trillion
sigh