Not to nitpick, but a string of 128 digits is technically still 128 bytes long, assuming ASCII/Latin digits!

I guess, the parent of this comment meant that the "address space" of 1e128 is much smaller than that of >702e300.

I just wanted to clarify, because it made me pause and wtf for a second.

When one talks about an n-byte key in cryptography one typically means an n-bytes combinatorial space, not a string of length n representing n decimal digits.

That's what the cybercriminal needs to learn to distinguish :-)

I was wondering where "RSA-464" in the article came from.. and found calculation formula, which makes this number to seem incorrect?

bmax - a maximum number of bits required for a decimal number is calculated by this formula: bmax = ceil(d(log(10)/log(2))) (where d - number of digits).

log(10)/log(2) = 3.3219280948873623

approximately: bmax = ceil(d3.3219)

comes to 425 bits key.

Yep, namely <54 bytes. Just for ease of comparison.

~54 bytes vs 128 bytes.

Considering it's a logarithmic measure (every bit adds x2 difficulty for cracking) and 128 bytes is rather tight... gives an idea of the weakness of this key.

"The name "digit" comes from the fact that the 10 digits (ancient Latin digiti meaning fingers) of the hands correspond to the 10 symbols of the common base 10 number system, i.e. the decimal (ancient Latin adjective dec. meaning ten) digits."

Digit means base 10 numerals. It would have to be a string of 128 characters, not 128 digits.