4 ms·
You apparently like to argue. Even if the sub-discussion is about accidental collisions centuries do not remain to fix the problem, which is that there was a r
by IncRnd 10y ago
You apparently like to argue. Even if the sub-discussion is about accidental collisions centuries do not remain to fix the problem, which is that there was a recent practical attack of a mathematical speedup for certain types of collisions. Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise.
The attack persists regardless of the lack or presence of accidental collisions, therefore there aren't centuries to fix the problem.
- pvg 10y agoYou're the one who started this stupid argument. There is no 'attack'. This is was the conversation: Someone: "Huh, they say it would take billions of years for an accidental collision at checkin rate X" Someone else: "What if the collision rate were much higher? Famous last words, 640k, herf glorp" Me: "Even at a million times higher checkin rate you are unlikely to see collisions anytime soon" You: "It's about ethics in gaming journalism!" My conclusion doesn't follow your premise because your premise is simply wrong. Enough.