On Sun, 2016-04-03 at 15:36 +0000, Yawning Angel wrote: > http://cacr.uwaterloo.ca/techreports/2014/cacr2014-20.pdf > > Is "optimized" in that, it is C with performance critical parts in > assembly (Table 3 is presumably the source of the ~200 ms figure from > the wikipedia article). As i said, i just took the performance figures > at face value. > > I'm sure it'll go faster with time, but like you, I'm probably not going > to trust SIDH for a decade or so. There is a new SIDH library from MS Research : https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/413.pdf https://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/sidh/ On Tue, 2016-04-26 at 15:05 +0000, isis wrote: > It's not my paper, so I probably shouldn't give too much away, butâ > > Essentially, there are two different optimisations being discussed: one which > allows faster signature times via batching, which can optionally also be used > to decrease the size of the signatures (although assuming you're sending > several signatures in succession to the same party). That optimisation is > maybe useful for something like PQ Bitcoin; probably not so much for Tor. It's maybe worth keeping this sort of tool in mind for tools like co-signing.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ tor-dev mailing list tor-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev