You claim that a reversible algorithm takes zero time. I said that requires a reversible algorithm that applies to an arbitrary AES-256 key which is currently thought to be impossible.
Brute forcing is not breaking but instead simply enumerating the key space and is subject to the slow downs we are talking about here.
> I agree that adding in Moore's law doesn't change the numbers by much. Moore's law plus weakening of cryptographic assumptions might do it, though. Plenty of previously-believed-to-be-strong crypto algorithms have been cracked, it's reasonable to think that we just don't have the tools to create unbreakable codes yet. (E.g. RSA is known to be breakable with quantum computers with Shor's algorithm.)
But you are missing the point of cryptographic systems, the goal typically isn't to be forever uncrackable, it is to be effectively forever uncrackable which includes upgrading the strength of your cryptography over time.
If we were talking about cracking crypto within 100 years then maybe we could talk about reasonable fear, but all of these things involve timelines that are longer than that (including quantum computer work).
No, you misread my comment. Reversible computing can take almost no energy.
What? Why is brute force impossible to code? I don't understand what you're claiming.
I agree that adding in Moore's law doesn't change the numbers by much. Moore's law plus weakening of cryptographic assumptions might do it, though. Plenty of previously-believed-to-be-strong crypto algorithms have been cracked, it's reasonable to think that we just don't have the tools to create unbreakable codes yet. (E.g. RSA is known to be breakable with quantum computers with Shor's algorithm.)