1600+ entries in 0.151s
diana_coman: hmm, I suppose I could run a trial
test on a batch of generated public exponents with co-prime rather than strict prime requirements, to see what small factors are there but not sure if this will say a lot really in itself; fwiw I don't feel particularly comfortable with the idea of a non-prime public exponent but I don't have mathematical proof for weakness introduced, hence my question
shinohai: I shall have to purchase a pin meter and hire the services of 10-20 women to
test this hypothesis .....
diana_coman: asciilifeform, possibly I managed to screw it up in an even more basic way; here's the
test function itself (this one gets called repeatedly for each key and each message)
mircea_popescu: and in other lulz of all time, a terribly bad
test "for fascism" gives me 43%, ie fellow-traveller status.
ben_vulpes: leaning on intuition here; feels odd to me that the "randomly would exceed" value is so round on so many of your
test runs, but it's gotta be weakness in my statistics intuition
a111: Logged on 2017-10-14 10:23 apeloyee: asciilifeform: do you plan to
test how much information about operands leaks as difference in power consumption? It looks plausible that multiplying 0*0 and maxint*maxint consume different amount of power.
apeloyee: asciilifeform: do you plan to
test how much information about operands leaks as difference in power consumption? It looks plausible that multiplying 0*0 and maxint*maxint consume different amount of power.
☟︎ mod6: that's more of a higher-level, functional style
test.
mod6: ive been writing unit
test for ffa
apeloyee: anyway, I was saying that, if spending a week, may spend a small fraction of the time on the supposed-deterministic
test mircea_popescu: asciilifeform but the
test that takes longer and costs more does not consist of manic re-measuring of the same one length, repeated millions of times.
apeloyee: doesn't run in geological (e.g. saxena) time << if you have faith in generalized riemann hypothesis and correctness of work on deterministic miller
test - you have it. I don't, but running
test for a week is imo greater crackpottery than believing in that.
apeloyee: at that cost, may also do the deterministic miller
test then.
apeloyee: maple did a deterministic
test mod6: btw, do you have a simple
test harness setup for this just to assert some known output values?
lobbes: excited to
test it out, although 100% of my payments have been in ecu so far. Perhaps will change now though
BingoBoingo: asciilifeform: These are more typically. Hold button, trivial
test of "familiar with idea of heavy equipment or not"
mod6: that's what you use to
test in parallel right?
trinque: deedbot wallet ready when I perform a privkey generation ritual after fg final
test.
a111: Logged on 2017-09-19 19:34 asciilifeform: i thought that at this point everybody just does the 5min litmus
test a111: Logged on 2017-09-12 23:52 asciilifeform:
http://btcbase.org/log/2017-09-12#1713184 << in ffaworld, a < or > or == comparison is not only a subtraction (O(N)) but another O(N)
test for nullity (xor all the words together)
a111: Logged on 2017-09-16 15:31 asciilifeform: in other olds ( i dun think i posted this measurement ) the NAIVE modular exponentiator takes 51.3 seconds per 4096b a*b mod m , on the 'standard'
test box
a111: Logged on 2017-09-12 23:11 mircea_popescu: 2. a fine example of how "i work for the web man" rots the brain, is that in an implementation of the above discussed mod-distributiver, the "common" consensus impulse would be to add a
test, make sure the list elements respect the condition of <modulus. this however is very much the wrong thing ; and it is a tmsr-graduate level question to explain why and wherefore.
mircea_popescu: 2. a fine example of how "i work for the web man" rots the brain, is that in an implementation of the above discussed mod-distributiver, the "common" consensus impulse would be to add a
test, make sure the list elements respect the condition of <modulus. this however is very much the wrong thing ; and it is a tmsr-graduate level question to explain why and wherefore.
☟︎ mircea_popescu: 1. multiply x and y ; 2. count bits of result ; 3. count bits of modulus ; 4. multiply modulus with count2 - count3 and
test if larger than result. if not, substract. if yes, multiply with count2-count3-1 and do the same. repeat until result smaller than modulus.
ben_vulpes: myeah, dent
test don't make so much sense applied to ceramics
ben_vulpes: different ~everything; what, make me a strand of wood fiber as thin as spider silk and let's
test it
mircea_popescu: now this man... he had a set of 9V lightbulbs. and so as any good respectable citizen i sat down with the dead man's dragon pile, to
TEST everythiung I got. yes ?
☟︎ shinohai:
https://github.com/owocki/pytrader <<< "My
test portfolio was initialized with a 1 BTC deposit, and after 2 months and 23,413 trades, exited with 0.955 BTC. The system paid 2.486 BTC in fees to poloniex."
fyr: My "urbit-turd" is ultimately on a
test-net, and doesn't have live keys
pete_dushenski: mircea_popescu: it was one of those "please to submit your version details" so... i did. can't recall if i actually clicked the "emergent consensus" button seriously or in jest, or if it was something that the hosts ticked, but it was definitely a
test to see if they'd keep it up or not. looks like they have.
mod6: Occasionally when I'm trying to do a
test or some such thing.
mircea_popescu: sooo... everyone got klined accidentally,
test run for whenever ?
ave1: asciilifeform: I would probably not have thought about the L > 8
test otherwise
mircea_popescu: valica_ i would teach crypto as a graduate level item for the top of the class in math and kids from physics who
test in. and nobody else.