Seth Goodman writes:
Which is exactly the opposite of what the Crypto++ 3.1 benchmark data _you_
presented claimed, and by a factor of 20.
Look again.
I'm not the one who is proposing this particular signing technology. The
burden of proof is on those who propose it. There is credible data out
there, as well as a lot of experience, that indicates RSA signatures are
horribly expensive. Make an argument against it. Run _your_ own tests if
necessary and present them.
This is becoming tedious. I have no stake in whether
verifying is faster than signing or not; it just is. I'm
sorry you can't be bothered to believe the references that I
gave.
Mike