|
From: | Lapo Luchini |
Subject: | [Monotone-devel] Re: fatal: Botan::PRNG_Unseeded |
Date: | Wed, 02 Apr 2008 18:31:53 +0200 |
User-agent: | Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080303) |
Lapo Luchini wrote:
ECDSA signatures would be so small
Which is of course of PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE, because signatures right now use almost 4% of database space. That's not acceptable.
(yes, I'm kidding) % mtn db exec 'SELECT SUM(LENGTH(signature)) FROM revision_certs;' 5861887 % bc 5861888/148422656 .03949456341759576112 > ECDSA signatures would be [...] so fast...and even this is strictly not true at the current 80 bit security level we're using (1024 bit RSA is around 80 bit of security and 3.2x faster than ECDSA-256p), though it would be actually faster at higher security levels (e.g. ECDSA-256p has 128 bit of security and is 2.4x faster than the equivalent RSA 3072 bits; and produces signatures 512 bit long, vs 3072 bit).
Lapo
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |