That list ordering drives me nuts. What's up with 1024?!
And how come much larger numbers have already been solved? Based on that information one cannot strictly assume that the current solution required improvements to the strategy or hardware, no?
The ordering is stupid because some of them are named by the number of bits and some of them are named by the number of decimal digits. They are in order of size and this is the largest one so far, despite the confusing names.
Comments
anddd it's already on wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA_numbers#RSA-260
That list ordering drives me nuts. What's up with 1024?!
And how come much larger numbers have already been solved? Based on that information one cannot strictly assume that the current solution required improvements to the strategy or hardware, no?
The ordering is stupid because some of them are named by the number of bits and some of them are named by the number of decimal digits. They are in order of size and this is the largest one so far, despite the confusing names.