Recommended key size for life long key

Robert J. Hansen rjh at
Sun Sep 8 01:53:51 CEST 2013

On 9/7/2013 5:35 PM, Ole Tange wrote:
> Feel free to let me know if you feel I have left out important concerns.

The good news is that you are not your ideas.  Whether your ideas are
good or bad has nothing to do with your worth as a person.  A great
paper won't make you a good human being -- I've known some true geniuses
who are terrible people -- and a bad paper doesn't make you stupid,
inferior, or bad.

Now for the bad news: it's rubbish.

NIST, RSA Data Security, Lenstra and Schneier (just to name four) have
been extraordinarily careful about their long-term recommendations.
None of them have been willing to project beyond about 25 years in the
future.  They have all shared their reasoning for their circumspection
and detailed the factors that make long-term prediction difficult.

You're projecting 87 years into the future.  Why should we have any
confidence in your analysis?

In my opinion, you very much need to address two questions right off:

	1.  What factors have prevented NIST, RSA Data Security,
	    Lenstra, Schneier, et al., from being able to make
	    an 87-year prediction?
	2.  Why do these factors not apply to your analysis?

Without those two questions being raised directly and immediately, there
is no reason for a reader to have any confidence in what you've written.
 It is far more likely that you are limited by the same factors that
have limited NIST, RSA Data Security, Lenstra, Schneier, et al., and are
simply not aware of how those factors are confounding your analysis.

There are a large number of other errors in your write-up, but those two
questions above are the most critical shortcomings.  Without answers to
those two questions I can see no reason for anyone to take your writeup

More information about the Gnupg-users mailing list