[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121118113840.GA22626@openwall.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 15:38:40 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: Colin Percival <cperciva@...snap.com>
Cc: scrypt@...snap.com, crypt-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: scrypt time-memory tradeoff
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 03:23:31AM -0800, Colin Percival wrote:
> You get a 2x cost reduction by trading increased time for reduced area (as
> in a previous email) and another 2x reduction by ignoring the initial setup
> (practically speaking)
Yes, that's what I was thinking. The initial setup time becomes
negligible compared to that of the second phase - or it can even be
fully removed, but that's not optimal in practice because the Salsa20
core has some area cost too.
> but I never intended to include the setup in my
> area-time bound.
Oh, that's nice.
In other words, you could have killed this trade-off (by slightly
different design) and then claim 4x or 2x higher costs (depending on
whether the trade-off was accounted for in the costs or not).
Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
