Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I don't think you 'get it' Andrew :-) The folks who bust captchas, 16,000 machines is chump change, they run botnets of hundreds of thousands of machines, they dynamically buy EC2 instances, they make a lot of money.

That is the primary reason why I believe that people who use the term 'computationally unfeasible' (you see that a lot in crypto papers) never counted on the kinds of growth we've seen in computers coupled with the ease with which these folks can steal computer power from clueless users.

My claim is that you need an independent engine of computation on your side that can prove you are you with a high degree of confidence, and cannot be corrupted economically by a third party. (so local programs on your PC or Smart phone won't cut it)




Exponential CPU growth rates are factored into cryptographic protocols. As long as growth rates don't become super-exponential they're safe.


Cryptosystems that require 2^128 tries to crack aren't going to be much easier even if you have a billion machines; you really need a theoretical breakthrough. :)

Of course that doesn't apply here.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: