[clement_b]

What's quite annoying is how agressive most products are into forcing this method over regular email+pw / Social Logins. Let me use my 100 chars password!

[pas]

You are not the target audience, you are not even an outlier, it's probably time to accept this and look for long-term solutions that allow you to interface with the "mainstream".

[sampullman]

Many (most?) people I know in the "target audience" want to keep their email+password logins.

[whyever]

Such long passwords are silly, they will be effectively truncated by the key length of the underlying cryptography.

[FabHK]

Agreed. But since every character gives you around 6 bits (26*2 letters + 10 numbers + some special characters ≈ 64 = 2^6), you'd need 256/6 ≈ 43 characters to exhaust the checked entropy, so up to that level it makes sense.

If you use sentences instead of randomly generated characters, the entropy (in bits/character) is lower, so 100 characters might well make sense.

[sweetjuly]

Passwords are (or, rather, SHOULD be) cryptographically hashed rather than encrypted. It's possible to compute a hash over data which is longer than the hash input block size by feeding precious hashes and the next input block back in to progressively build up a hash of the entire data.

[bsimpson]

For years (and way more recently than is appropriate), the financial institution Schwab would silently truncate your password to 8 characters.

If your password was 123lookatme, you could type 123lookaLITERALLYANYTHING and it would succeed.