[tahoe-dev] 100-year cryptography

[Samuel Neves]

Zooko O'Whielacronx wrote:
>> Today, LAFS is (relatively) a novelty. In 5-10 years, when it begins to be acceptably fast, will it still be?
>>     
>
> I'm not sure if I follow this. Tahoe-LAFS is already acceptably fast
> for many uses. We know that it is not acceptably fast for some other
> uses, and we know why it is not, and so far the reasons why it is not
> are mostly to do with network behavior and not with cryptography. (The
> exception is RSA keypair generation, which means it takes a lot of CPU
> cycles to generate a new mutable file or directory and which needs to
> be fixed by the application of new cryptography.)
>
>   
Sorry, didn't mean to say Tahoe-LAFS was overly slow --- just making the
point in case the choice of {hash,encryption,signature} functions did
make it so.