This I find interesting. I assume the initial 1.4 billion iterations
estimate was based on the probability of finding 23 1's in a random set of
108 bits. Since this probability cannot change how was the client able to
significantly cheat the odds to find distinguished points 20% faster than
expected? Is the recent change in the way the client starts the next point
after a distinguished point is found responsible for the average iterations
returning to the original estimate?
At 1:42 -0700 3/7/2000, Daniel de Rauglaudre wrote:
><< Please note: probability estimates have now been revised. Previously
> they used the approximation that each distinguished point took 1.4
> billion iterations on average. The actual average is about 1.1 billion
> currently and is gradually increasing towards 1.4 billion. The revised
> estimates are more accurate, but a bit lower. >>
>
>Our previous estimation or probability was optimistic.
-- Dan Oetting <oetting@ghtmail.cr.usgs.gov>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Mar 08 2000 - 01:49:44 MET