Re: [Asrg] 3 (Message Verification) - Viability of hashcash-based signatures (was: E-postage from first principles)
2004-04-30 17:10:15
- The stamp optionally includes a signature to facilitate
whitelisting. This can reduce the hashcash demanded from regular
correspondents to as low as 8 bits, which is computationally
trivial...
...If nobody happens to have a Z80 and a compiler to hand, I'll put in
some work and try it for the 6502 instead - I have a handful of old
BBC Micros lying around.
To answer my own question, I've worked out that a 6502 can process an
SHA-1 block in about 40000 cycles, which compares surprisingly well to
the 68030 (and begs an investigation into precisely why the '030 is so
inefficient). This is completely untested code - I didn't even type it
into the machine, just worked out the timing piecemeal from the
assembly manual - but the ballpark figure should be accurate.
To put this in perspective, it means that my 1982-vintage BBC Micros
(with 2MHz 6502 chips) should be able to mint 8-bit hashcash in about 5
seconds on average, and most other 8-bit accumulator machines
(including the Z80 family) should be comparable. This, in turn, means
that my whitelist-grade signature scheme should be computationally
feasible for pretty much every "computer" capable of running a TCP/IP
stack. This encourages me to continue working on a more detailed spec
for discussion.
Code size may be more of a problem, however, as the 40000-cycle
performance assumes a fairly unrolled-loop code configuration, which
consumes a significant portion of a 16-bit address space (exact size
not calculated, but 4-8KB is possible). It also assumes a fixed area
of RAM, including 25 bytes of zero page and 340 bytes elsewhere, is
available and hard-coded into the program. For machines with a paged
ROM system and a half-decent memory map, this shouldn't be a serious
problem, but for some microcontrollers it may require a tradeoff of
code size and/or position-independence against performance.
In any case, it is certainly no problem for any truly 32-bit machine.
--------------------------------------------------------------
from: Jonathan "Chromatix" Morton
mail: chromi(_at_)chromatix(_dot_)demon(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk
website: http://www.chromatix.uklinux.net/
tagline: The key to knowledge is not to rely on people to teach you it.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: [Asrg] (no subject), (continued)
- [Asrg] E-postage from first principles, John Levine
- Re: [Asrg] E-postage from first principles, Jonathan Morton
- Re: [Asrg] E-postage from first principles, John Levine
- Re: [Asrg] E-postage from first principles, Jonathan Morton
- Re: [Asrg] 3 (Message Verification) - Viability of hashcash-based signatures (was: E-postage from first principles),
Jonathan Morton <=
- [Asrg] Consent protocols - was E-postage, David Maxwell
- [Asrg] Re: Consent protocols - was E-postage, John Levine
- [Asrg] Re: Consent protocols - was E-postage, David Maxwell
- [Asrg] Re: Consent protocols - was E-postage, John Levine
- [Asrg] Re: Consent protocols - was E-postage, David Maxwell
- [Asrg] Re: Consent protocols - was E-postage, John Levine
- Re: [Asrg] E-postage from first principles, Barry Shein
- Re: [Asrg] E-postage from first principles, Yakov Shafranovich
|
|
|