[lifthrasiir]

Yes I haven't claimed that it will last forever. But you have claimed "there is no something that non brute-forcable today" haven't you? 2140 is not "today" nor a near future. In fact it is more likely that a flaw is found in existing algorithms before 2140. Do you make your system last that long? Then you would want to avoid algorithms already broken in 19th century.

[kronxe]

I think maybe I cannot explain clearly, I dont have a claim like this my encryption algorithm is safest, fastest, best algorithm on the earth. I tried to make an 'unique' algorithm (as you call home made :) ) in an hour. I shared it in order to show there should be different approaches to encryption algorithm because if algorithm working principles are known and predictable, then algorithm safety level decrease. I think you tried to approach cryptography by an academic perspective (more stable solutions) but I tried to avoid stoling of the data.

By the way, I mentioned N=NP due to show probably in a few years there is solution of this problem and maybe the end of the bitcoin [1].

As your claim about brute-forcability, I want to say quantum computing is experimental right now but there is working machine and proccesing units of them. In other words, it is not only theoretical and Quantum computing age probably allows to crack these all algorithms probably mine as well with Quantum AI. However, in my opinion, if people do not know how your algorithms work, the attacking possibility is dramatically decreases.It is more difficult to target something unknown.

[1] https://gizmodo.com/if-you-solve-this-math-problem-you-could...

[lifthrasiir]

> [...] maybe the end of the bitcoin.

I have only used Bitcoin as a reasonable limit of computation power we can readily make use of. It is completely irrelevant whether Bitcoin is feasible in a long run or not.

> However, in my opinion, if people do not know how your algorithms work, the attacking possibility is dramatically decreases.

There are multiple instances of black-box reverse engineering where attackers were able to determine (and break) the previously unknown algorithm. Your opinion is unsubstantiated. No reason to assume quantum AI at all, which might or might not be helpful for cryptanalysis.

Seriously, I'm okay with learning cryptography by messing with innards, but you need the basic understanding of modern cryptography at the very least, including confusion and diffusion. In particular it is very important to know what not to do, that is critically missing from your claims. Modern cryptographers start learning by breaking existing algorithms known to be faulty by their own. Without this active process you are going to repeat past mistakes.