I had Claude port CADO-NFS to run on GPUs. Then it orchestrated a fleet to run on scavenged idle capacity. It ran with a max of 2048 GPUs for about of 30 GPU-years over 10 days.
I asked Claude if it had a message for a public: “The credit belongs first to the people who built the number field sieve and CADO-NFS over several decades, and to the teams who set the earlier records. This run used their algorithm and much of their code.”
Also to clarify:
- No new algorithmic factoring improvements.
- It’s still exponential.
- No new threats to deployed keys.RSA-896 (saweis.net)
madars 7 hours ago
sjs382 5 hours ago
wslh 5 hours ago
It's actually subexponential: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_number_field_sieve?wpr...
cwillu 4 hours ago
schoen 2 hours ago
https://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2004-June/00...
aidenn0 2 hours ago
schoen 2 hours ago
sweis 3 hours ago
DavideNL 3 hours ago
whizzter an hour ago
Back of the envelope.. 1024 bit keys with recordings of not too old data can probably be found (MS only deprecated them in 2024 even if they planned on it in 2013)
How long would it take for NSA to crack them if they had say the equivalent of a million GPU's? (either GPU's or crypto tuned ASICs)
walrus01 an hour ago
ErroneousBosh 18 minutes ago
Something I've often wondered is where the curve between "shit encryption / nation state cracking" crosses.
How much CPU would you need to be Annoyingly Difficult to crack?
I reckon with elliptic curves you could be quite annoying within about a minute on a 1980s-level CPU, to the extent that you could send a fairly ephemeral message quite quickly that would take disproportionately long to crack. Certainly long enough for the thing you have communicated to be no longer worth the effort to know.
You could probably do 256-bit Curve25519 key generation in under ten minutes on an Apple II or Commodore 64, because the 6502's maths is terribly limited, but something like the Tandy Color or Dragon 32 with its 6809 processor (or hey why not the Ensoniq Mirage sampler?) could do that in probably a minute or so because it has a MUL opcode that's quite fast.
I reckon that would keep even a fairly interested nation state chewing away long after your message had been read, understood, and acted upon.
tristanj 6 hours ago
Though, it would make more financial sense to mine crypto.
ehe78qhe 6 hours ago
tristanj 5 hours ago
That's entirely why they can blow compute on the fun projects like this. If they had to pay extra for the electricity, they wouldn't do it.
Barbing 5 hours ago
rightnutwingjob 5 hours ago
The second is approximately no better than astrology.
ehe78qhe 5 hours ago
adastra22 3 hours ago
lazide 2 hours ago
Not using it would not save them any money, they already paid for it.
londons_explore an hour ago
I wonder why they don't have some kind of scheduler which makes sure there are never any idle minutes. One would imagine they at least would have autoscaling on their production serving workload and use the freed compute capacity for model training for example.
esseph 30 minutes ago
odo1242 4 hours ago
There is cost, but the cost is mostly the opportunity cost of not being able to do something else.
toast0 4 hours ago
I don't have any insight on modern GPU datacenters, but in decades past, some owned and operated datacenters didn put effort into making sure power management worked because the cost savings were worth it. I'm pretty sure I saw plans to shed load and power off servers if a utility made a demand response request or in case of loss of cooling. I wouldn't be surprised if some owned and operated data centers do regular full shutdowns at off peak... WOL, IPMI or RTC wakeup can bring them back when needed and if you already have a dynamic service orchestrator and setup times are acceptable, why not shut down if there's no actual priority work and there's also no idle priority opportunistic load either...
huslage an hour ago
esseph 29 minutes ago
> why not shut down if there's no actual priority work and there's also no idle priority opportunistic load either...
Full shutdown and startup often kills capacitors and used to be dangerous for rotational HDD.
Sometimes once you turn things off, they simply don't come back on. It happens.
logicallee 4 hours ago
monster_truck 3 hours ago
qurren 4 hours ago
GPUs are power-inefficient for mining most crypto so not necessarily. You may end up paying more in electricity than you are able to mine.
Most crypto mining is on ASICs now.
aidenn0 2 hours ago
Also, even if they were paying for electricity, they would lose less money mining crypto than factoring RSA numbers.
someguydave 5 hours ago
blackdahlia313 5 hours ago
tristanj 5 hours ago
qurren 4 hours ago
https://privatekeys.pw/puzzles/bitcoin-puzzle-tx
If you break one though be careful when redeeming it, there are bots set up to pounce and steal the coins when they are transacted because the reduced entropy makes that possible. You need to submit the transaction to a mining pool that will not broadcast it until it is mined.
DoctorOetker 4 hours ago
the script could have been designed 2 phase, so one first submits a hash of the solution & submitter address, so even if miners front-run the submitter, they just helpfully pay the transaction fee!
LiamPowell 4 hours ago
greyface- 3 hours ago
scriptPubKey: OP_DUP OP_HASH160 <pubKeyHash> OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG
scriptSig: <sig> <pubKey>
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scripttromp an hour ago
With taproot (P2TR), scripts are optional, and outputs can be based solely on Schnorr signatures.
greyface- an hour ago
schoen 2 hours ago
Since Simplicity runs on Bitcoin-like blockchains, someone can swipe the witness data from the legitimate winner's proposed transaction, and create a new transaction (perhaps with a higher fee) using the same claim data and sending the prize to a different address.
Anyway, I ended up implementing a two-phase commit mechanism in which you pay a deposit to temporarily lock the prize so that it can only be paid out to your address. If you then make a valid claim, the prize can be paid to you; if you don't, you forfeit your deposit.
https://community.simplicity-lang.org/t/running-prize-contes...
(I think this was suggested by Russell O'Connor, the inventor of Simplicity, but it may have been a widespread idea in the smart contracts world. I don't know whether there's a straightforward way to implement it with Bitcoin Script, which is what this older prize would have needed.)
gautamcgoel 2 hours ago
raverbashing 2 hours ago
I guess it would be "trivial" to have a bounty on each of the future numbers, since you could encrypt a bitcoin private key with it (it would probably make sense to do RSA -> AES key that encodes the BTC private key)