D. J. Bernstein
Authenticators and signatures
A state-of-the-art public-key signature system

# The constant c

The constant c is the integer with 309-digit decimal expansion
```     179870286739608110908793986433779282952709437186980111027634886806680
105430306203504772087724415765187628536569403357866962021859070432575
840490938673081114568020802801572639107433385488013533823889359543365
805739639724297106495248013808227417948954846716576431759705516797612
912096782118234207449553394447817
```
in the range {2^1024,2^1024+1,...,2^1024+10^306-1}.

## How c was selected

I chose c by adding 306 random digits to 2^1024. Choosing c at random, and then choosing pq at random in {2^512 c,...,2^512 c+2^512-1}, has the same effect as choosing pq at random from the wide interval {2^1536,...,2^1536+2^512 10^306-1}. It is conjectured, and consistent with all available experiments, that a uniform distribution of c produces an almost uniform distribution of pairs (p,q).

Instead of generating my own random digits, I took the first 306 digits from the RAND tables published in 1955:

```     10097 32533  76520 13586  34673 54876  80959 09117  39292 74945
37542 04805  64894 74296  24805 24037  20636 10402  00822 91665
08422 68953  19645 09303  23209 02560  15953 34764  35080 33606
99019 02529  09376 70715  38311 31165  88676 74397  04436 27659
12807 99970  80157 36147  64032 36653  98951 16877  12171 76833
66065 74717  34072 76850  36697 36170  65813 39885  11199 29170
31060 1
```
This selection strategy means that anyone can verify that I didn't cheat.

Of course, it's conceivable that the creators of the RAND tables cheated and constrained their digits. However, it isn't conceivable that anyone in 1955 knew so much about factorization and public-key cryptography to be able to (or want to!) choose a weak value of c for this application.