Timelock puzzle improvment I came across this question with this answer about a cryptographic timelock-puzzle that needs approximately 30 years to be solved. There is also an explanation with source code for that puzzle available here and here. All of this looks very similar to RSA. My first question is: In which ways does this differ (or not differ) from RSA?

I also heard of conditions that have to be true for the chosen prime numbers in RSA to guarantee security. In the (old) source code the program just looks for the next prime number it can find. Are there any conditions for prime numbers in RSA? If so, could I implement these myself or should I use already existing code?
In RSA, exponents are small, so the encryption/decryption can be done quickly. Here, exponent is of the form $2^t$, where $t$ is very large. For example, consider RSA 2048 - exponents have at most 2048 bits. If you set $2^t=2048=2^{11}$, then to solve this puzzle one will need to do only 2048 squarings, roughly the same as you need to do a decryption in RSA. But if you set $t=2^{128}$, then one will need to do $2^{128}$ squarings, which is far outside from current computational powers.

But if you can factorize the number, then you know the order of the group and can reduce exponent modulo this order: $a^{2^t} = a^{2^t mod \phi(n)}$.

Similarity with RSA is that both problems are based on exponentiation in so-called "RSA" group (multiplication mod $pq$) and both used the fact that for an attacker the group order is unknown.

For choice of primes numbers I recommend to read the wiki article. In brief, the primes should have the same size in bits and each of the primes should be of the form $p=2q+1$, where $q$ is some another prime, to defend from Pollard's p-1 method. Also $p+1$ must also have large prime factors, to defend from Pollard's p+1 method. If you choose primes randomly of the form $p=2q+1$ then everything will be fine. Actually if you simply choose random primes of specified size (as done in the article) then chances that it is breakable are very negligible.