Torrent promising huge amounts of leaked data is now live

[Blade of Grass]

Ehh, what? Mega is, according to the International System of Units, equal to 10⁶. 1000MB == 1GB. 1024MiB == 1GiB.

Again, it's just that Windows incorrectly says GB instead of GiB.

How many meters is one kilometer? 1000

How many bytes is one kilobyte? 1000

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1+mebibyte

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1+megabyte

So again, 1000 Megabytes is 1 Gigabyte. 1024 Mebibytes is 1 Gibibytes.

Further proof:

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/prefixes.html

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html

Can we please leave this now?

Thanks for all the help correcting this, you did a good job and saved me from having to do it. XD :)

[zeros]

Ehh, what? Mega is, according to the International System of Units, equal to 10⁶. 1000MB == 1GB. 1024MiB == 1GiB.

Again, it's just that Windows incorrectly says GB instead of GiB.

 

How many meters is one kilometer? 1000

How many bytes is one kilobyte? 1000

 

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1+mebibyte

 

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1+megabyte

 

So again, 1000 Megabytes is 1 Gigabyte. 1024 Mebibytes is 1 Gibibytes.

 

Further proof:

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/prefixes.html

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html

 

Can we please leave this now?

 

 Never heard of this, wasn't taught of this anywhere in my IT classes not even at college. And I thought that it's hard to explain the difference between MB/s and Mb/s, which for whatever reason for some is impossible to understand. If I would have to explain MiB and GiB they would look at me like I'm talking about an unknown language.  :lol: .

 

As a side note: I remember that on XP with Romanian language pack had it correctly with GiB and MiB; I always thought that that is how they say it in Romanian. Seems I was wrong.

[Chevaishr]

Does anyone have some password breaking tools. I had one but it melted my CPU and GPU quicker than you could turn it off. It wasn't too bad it was only a 560tI and some old intel CPU though.

amd gpus usually do better at brute force attacks (on the same scale of bitcoin mining )

[Vitalius]

Ehh, what? Mega is, according to the International System of Units, equal to 10⁶. 1000MB == 1GB. 1024MiB == 1GiB.

Again, it's just that Windows incorrectly says GB instead of GiB.

How many meters is one kilometer? 1000

How many bytes is one kilobyte? 1000

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1+mebibyte

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1+megabyte

So again, 1000 Megabytes is 1 Gigabyte. 1024 Mebibytes is 1 Gibibytes.

Further proof:

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/prefixes.html

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html

Can we please leave this now?

Found a good explanation of "why" this is as it is. It's a bit long but informative:

A kilobyte is actually 1000 bytes. "kilo-" is an SI prefix meaning "1000".

1 km = 1000 meters

1 kg = 1000 grams

1 kB = 1000 bytes

When dealing with computer memory, the addresses for each memory location are typically binary numbers, which means the total number of addresses is a power of 2. It makes the most sense to use all of these positions, so the total capacity of a memory will typically be a power of two.

Since 2¹⁰ is equal to 1,024, it is often approximated as "1 kilobyte" in speech, but this is just a shorthand, not a real definition.

RAM manufacturers treat this as a literal meaning instead of an approximation, though, and extend this to higher powers, which conflicts with the way units are used elsewhere. So a "1 GB" RAM IC has 2³⁰ = 1,073,741,824 bytes instead of 1,000,000,000 bytes, a 7% error. On the other hand, a 1 GB Flash memory actually does have around 1,000,000,000 bytes, as you would expect.

"kB" or "KB" can mean either 1024 bytes or 1000 bytes, depending on who you ask. Both meanings have been in use since the early days of computing, confusing users ever since.

kilo- means 1000, and has for centuries, so where did 1024 come from? The answer is binary addressing.

Your basic transistor, the foundation for all things computer, has 2 states (on/off), which is known as binary. So modern computers of all types use the binary numbering system (0/1 = off/on).

Memory addresses in computers are a number of bits wide. For instance, the old 6502 microprocessor had memory addresses 16 bits 'wide'.

With 10 bits, for instance, a computer can address 2¹⁰ memory locations, which is 1024. With 16 bits, a computer can address 2¹⁶ memory locations. So the number of memory locations is always a power of two. It wouldn't make much sense to make memory chips that don't use all of the addressable locations, so all memory is in powers of two. (This doesn't apply to other computer components, however. Hard drives, disk drives, DVDs, and other media, clock speeds and data rates and networking speeds are all measured in powers of 10.)

But 1024 is 2¹⁰ (2 to the 10th power), conveniently close to 10³ (1000). In computers, base-2 shows up over and over again. It's easier to approximate and say "1k" instead of 1024. 1 kilo is normally 1000, as per the metric system's prefixes.

In this case, the next higher size of memory chips was often 2x or 4x the previous size. This pulled folks away from the normal base-10 thinking toward base-2 thinking ... and we ended up with something that sounds like it is based on powers of 10, but is really based on powers of 2.

Officially, 1000 is the only valid meaning, and "k" was used by engineers for 1024 just as an approximation. (2048 bytes is equal to 2.0 kB, after all.) Over time, this approximation became used by marketing types as if it was actually defined as 1024, rather than just being used as an approximation.

In 1968, for instance, Donald Morrison talked about how it was confusing to tell laymen that doubling a 32K memory produced a 65K memory. He proposed to end the confusion by using the Greek letter κ (kappa) to mean 1024, but this never stuck. Instead, people started using capital K to mean 1024, which further increased confusion instead of helping.

Nowadays however, there is a new prefix to be used for the non-standard meaning:

1 kibibyte (KiB) is 1024 bytes

1 kilobyte (kB) is 1000 bytes

So too for the old megabyte which was 220 bytes:

1 mebibyte (MiB) is 1,048,576 bytes

1 megabyte (MB) is 1,000,000 bytes.

Higher units like terabyte have always been used with the 1000x meaning except in rare cases likely because RAM doesn't go that high (yet).

Taken from here.

@zeros

Honestly, I find the -bibyte names weird and silly, and likely won't use them myself unless explicitly explaining this to someone. I think the whole concept of there being two different ones will never stick to the layman and only be known and understood by people who deal with it often (like IT guys) and people like us. And not all of us will know that. Sort of making it pointless.

[zeros]

Found a good explanation of "why" this is as it is. It's a bit long but informative:

A kilobyte is actually 1000 bytes. "kilo-" is an SI prefix meaning "1000".

1 km = 1000 meters

1 kg = 1000 grams

1 kB = 1000 bytes

When dealing with computer memory, the addresses for each memory location are typically binary numbers, which means the total number of addresses is a power of 2. It makes the most sense to use all of these positions, so the total capacity of a memory will typically be a power of two.

Since 2¹⁰ is equal to 1,024, it is often approximated as "1 kilobyte" in speech, but this is just a shorthand, not a real definition.

RAM manufacturers treat this as a literal meaning instead of an approximation, though, and extend this to higher powers, which conflicts with the way units are used elsewhere. So a "1 GB" RAM IC has 2³⁰ = 1,073,741,824 bytes instead of 1,000,000,000 bytes, a 7% error. On the other hand, a 1 GB Flash memory actually does have around 1,000,000,000 bytes, as you would expect.

"kB" or "KB" can mean either 1024 bytes or 1000 bytes, depending on who you ask. Both meanings have been in use since the early days of computing, confusing users ever since.

kilo- means 1000, and has for centuries, so where did 1024 come from? The answer is binary addressing.

Your basic transistor, the foundation for all things computer, has 2 states (on/off), which is known as binary. So modern computers of all types use the binary numbering system (0/1 = off/on).

Memory addresses in computers are a number of bits wide. For instance, the old 6502 microprocessor had memory addresses 16 bits 'wide'.

With 10 bits, for instance, a computer can address 2¹⁰ memory locations, which is 1024. With 16 bits, a computer can address 2¹⁶ memory locations. So the number of memory locations is always a power of two. It wouldn't make much sense to make memory chips that don't use all of the addressable locations, so all memory is in powers of two. (This doesn't apply to other computer components, however. Hard drives, disk drives, DVDs, and other media, clock speeds and data rates and networking speeds are all measured in powers of 10.)

But 1024 is 2¹⁰ (2 to the 10th power), conveniently close to 10³ (1000). In computers, base-2 shows up over and over again. It's easier to approximate and say "1k" instead of 1024. 1 kilo is normally 1000, as per the metric system's prefixes.

In this case, the next higher size of memory chips was often 2x or 4x the previous size. This pulled folks away from the normal base-10 thinking toward base-2 thinking ... and we ended up with something that sounds like it is based on powers of 10, but is really based on powers of 2.

Officially, 1000 is the only valid meaning, and "k" was used by engineers for 1024 just as an approximation. (2048 bytes is equal to 2.0 kB, after all.) Over time, this approximation became used by marketing types as if it was actually defined as 1024, rather than just being used as an approximation.

In 1968, for instance, Donald Morrison talked about how it was confusing to tell laymen that doubling a 32K memory produced a 65K memory. He proposed to end the confusion by using the Greek letter κ (kappa) to mean 1024, but this never stuck. Instead, people started using capital K to mean 1024, which further increased confusion instead of helping.

Nowadays however, there is a new prefix to be used for the non-standard meaning:

1 kibibyte (KiB) is 1024 bytes

1 kilobyte (kB) is 1000 bytes

So too for the old megabyte which was 220 bytes:

1 mebibyte (MiB) is 1,048,576 bytes

1 megabyte (MB) is 1,000,000 bytes.

Higher units like terabyte have always been used with the 1000x meaning except in rare cases likely because RAM doesn't go that high (yet).

Taken from here.

@zeros

Honestly, I find the -bibyte names weird and silly, and likely won't use them myself unless explicitly explaining this to someone. I think the whole concept of there being two different ones will never stick to the layman and only be known and understood by people who deal with it often (like IT guys) and people like us. And not all of us will know that. Sort of making it pointless.

Ha I read it all, understood it all. Not saying that I can't explain it to someone else, but dam' not many can understand what this about. It's confusing.

[Vitalius]

Ha I read it all, understood it all. Not saying that I can't explain it to someone else, but dam' not many can understand what this about. It's confusing.

Well, I don't really see it as confusing. I see it more so as unnecessary to fix. It doesn't propose that big of a problem for either laymen or it guys. It's just an interesting fact to me and nothing more. Kinda why I called myself the math grammar nazi. I was correcting something I knew wasn't necessary to correct, but was more so doing it for fun than anything else.

Anyway, on topic (finally):

I may download this, but with a 375 KB/s connection (If I can't upgrade soon, looking into it), I don't think I want to dedicate my entire bandwidth to this. 

I have games to play/download dang it (lost a 120GB HDD with many of my Steam games on it). 

[zeros]

Well, I don't really see it as confusing. I see it more so as unnecessary to fix. It doesn't propose that big of a problem for either laymen or it guys. It's just an interesting fact to me and nothing more. Kinda why I called myself the math grammar nazi. I was correcting something I knew wasn't necessary to correct, but was more so doing it for fun than anything else.

Anyway, on topic (finally):

I may download this, but with a 375 KB/s connection (If I can't upgrade soon, looking into it), I don't think I want to dedicate my entire bandwidth to this. 

I have games to play/download dang it (lost a 120GB HDD with many of my Steam games on it). 

As I already said somewhere in this topic I could download it in 6-8days but don't have the space, one of my HDD is waiting for RMA but I wont send until I can back it up somewhere (it's a 2TB drive and 1.5TB full).

[Vitalius]

As I already said somewhere in this topic I could download it in 6-8days but don't have the space, one of my HDD is waiting for RMA but I wont send until I can back it up somewhere (it's a 2TB drive and 1.5TB full).

Getting a 4TB in the mail today for my home NAS.

*winning*

[kuddlesworth9419]

Still if you where really lucky then there is no reason why the first password tried couldn't be the correct one. It's incredibly unlikely but it could still happen. 

[noc]

Getting a 4TB in the mail today for my home NAS.

*winning*

So you'll be able to tell us what the file contains once your done downloading it? :D

[bcredeur97]

still no progress.... waiting...waiting..waiting for that password to show up smewhere

[Vitalius]

So you'll be able to tell us what the file contains once your done downloading it? :D

No. I'd have to have the password first.

The file is 1.7TB big. I have a download speed of 375 KB/s.

Assuming it uses normal Kilobytes and not.... *shudder* Kibibytes (I hate saying that, with a passion), it's 1,700,000,000 (1.7 billion) Kilobytes.

1.7 billion divided by 375 means it will take 28,333,333.333..... seconds or 472,222.222.... minutes or 7,870.370370.... hours or 327.93 days to download.

....

Lol screw that. I aint dedicating my entire internet speed to this for nearly a year.

I'll let the guys in Kansas City or Austin download this (they have Google Fiber, so 100 Mb/s up/down. They download 12.5 MB/s

1,700,000 MB at 12.5 MB/s would take 136,000 seconds, or 2,266.666.... minutes, or 37.777.... hours, or 1.5740740...... days.

Yeah, I'll leave it to them.

And that's assuming there are enough seeders to actually give out that much upload speed.

Which, if someone in one of those cities does get it, that's a loooot of upload speed for the rest of the torrent guys.

[dlf]

Uh VItalius, I have about the same speed as you and it'd take less than 100 days for me.

 

[noc]

1.7 billion divided by 375 means it will take 28,333,333.333..... seconds or 472,222.222.... minutes or 7,870.370370.... hours or 327.93 days to download.

 

omg... Ok, yea I don't blame you for not downloading it, lol.

[Vitalius]

Uh VItalius, I have about the same speed as you and it'd take less than 100 days for me.

 

1.7TB.png

.... Hmmm.

Where did  my math go wrong? :|

[EChondo]

No. I'd have to have the password first.

The file is 1.7TB big. I have a download speed of 375 KB/s.

Assuming it uses normal Kilobytes and not.... *shudder* Kibibytes (I hate saying that, with a passion), it's 1,700,000,000 (1.7 billion) Kilobytes.

1.7 billion divided by 375 means it will take 28,333,333.333..... seconds or 472,222.222.... minutes or 7,870.370370.... hours or 327.93 days to download.

....

Lol screw that. I aint dedicating my entire internet speed to this for nearly a year.

I'll let the guys in Kansas City or Austin download this (they have Google Fiber, so 100 Mb/s up/down. They download 12.5 MB/s

1,700,000 MB at 12.5 MB/s would take 136,000 seconds, or 2,266.666.... minutes, or 37.777.... hours, or 1.5740740...... days.

Yeah, I'll leave it to them.

And that's assuming there are enough seeders to actually give out that much upload speed.

Which, if someone in one of those cities does get it, that's a loooot of upload speed for the rest of the torrent guys.

People with Google Fiber are getting 1000Mb, which is 125MB download.

[Vitalius]

People with Google Fiber are getting 1000Mb, which is 125MB download.

Oh, right, forgot. Gigabit, not 100 Mb. My bad.

So take their time and divide it by 10. So, 0.15740740... of a day or so, or 4 hours. Approximately.

[EChondo]

Oh, right, forgot. Gigabit, not 100 Mb. My bad.

So take their time and divide it by 10. So, 0.15740740... of a day or so, or 4 hours. Approximately.

I wish I had that kind of connection....

[Vitalius]

I wish I had that kind of connection....

Very seriously considering moving to Austin just for the internet.

[EChondo]

Very seriously considering moving to Austin just for the internet.

I'm with you there man. Definitely worth that kind of speed. 

[James_AJ]

Watch it be 100 years of 

 

GENIUS.

[Lyons]

I don't think you understand how powerful AES-256 is. They recently discovered a flaw in AES which makes it 4 times as easy to crack. Here is a quite from the researchers who found it:

So let's assume it was an AES-128 container.

If we had 1,000,000,000,000 machines and all of them could test 1,000,000,000 keys a second, it would take 2,000,000,000 YEARS to crack.

Oh, but that's AES-128. This is AES-256... The thing with encryption algorithms is that the strength of an encryption relative to the key length is an exponential growth. Each additional bit doubles the strength of the key. So to return to our previous examples, with our trillion computers all testing a billion keys a second, it would take 8,000,000,000 years to crack AES 130, and 12,000,000,000 to crack AES 131.

So how much harder is AES-256 to crack than AES-128? Take AES-128, and then multiply it by this number:

340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456

That's over 340 undecillion times harder to crack. So unless I've made some error somewhere, it would be like this:

If we had 1,000,000,000,000 machines and all of them could test 1,000,000,000 keys a second, it would take 680,564,733,841,876,926,926,749,214,863,536,422,912,000,000,000 years to crack it.

680,564,733,841,876,926,926,749,214,863,536,422,912,000,000,000 - time it would take to crack with all those computers, in years.

13,770,000,000 - The age of the universe in years.

This is with the flaw by the way. Without it, it would be 4 times as long.

Holy shit

[Samdb]

I don't think you understand how powerful AES-256 is. They recently discovered a flaw in AES which makes it 4 times as easy to crack. Here is a quite from the researchers who found it:

So let's assume it was an AES-128 container.

If we had 1,000,000,000,000 machines and all of them could test 1,000,000,000 keys a second, it would take 2,000,000,000 YEARS to crack.

Oh, but that's AES-128. This is AES-256... The thing with encryption algorithms is that the strength of an encryption relative to the key length is an exponential growth. Each additional bit doubles the strength of the key. So to return to our previous examples, with our trillion computers all testing a billion keys a second, it would take 8,000,000,000 years to crack AES 130, and 12,000,000,000 to crack AES 131.

 

So how much harder is AES-256 to crack than AES-128? Take AES-128, and then multiply it by this number:

340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456

That's over 340 undecillion times harder to crack. So unless I've made some error somewhere, it would be like this:

If we had 1,000,000,000,000 machines and all of them could test 1,000,000,000 keys a second, it would take 680,564,733,841,876,926,926,749,214,863,536,422,912,000,000,000 years to crack it.

 

680,564,733,841,876,926,926,749,214,863,536,422,912,000,000,000 - time it would take to crack with all those computers, in years.

                                                                                      13,770,000,000 - The age of the universe in years.

 

This is with the flaw by the way. Without it, it would be 4 times as long.

Mother of God D:

[samuel]

Mother of God D:

or holy Big Bang, depending on the personal beliefs LOL

[Snickerzz]

watch the password be "password"