[cryptography] Let's go back to the beginning on this

Ian G iang at iang.org
Fri Sep 16 13:21:09 EDT 2011

On 17/09/11 2:33 AM, Ben Laurie wrote:

> A sufficiently low upper bound is convincing enough :-)

This is all the example seeks to show:  There is a low upper bound.

We really don't care whether it is 1% or 30%, or +/- 2% or finger in the 
air... as long as it is too low to be credible.

We just want to know whether there is a scaling issue such that at some 
largish number of CAs, we lose most of our "trust" or reliance or 
whatever word we're using today.

As long as each of the calculation methods head in that direction, we've 
found it.

As we know that the CA business grows, the number only gets worse.  So 
we have to change the system.  QED.


More information about the cryptography mailing list