3 ms·
Yes, that's correct, but if you get similar visualization for similar hashes, then you've got a much larger target to hit in your search space if you're trying
by tene 5y ago
Yes, that's correct, but if you get similar visualization for similar hashes, then you've got a much larger target to hit in your search space if you're trying to produce a value whose hash has a visualization that's close enough to pass manual inspection, which would circumvent the purpose of this hash visualization.
- mmahemoff 5y ago> if you get similar visualization for similar hashes True if you did, but I don't think that's the case. Even a single bit difference would send the bishop in a different direction and therefore cause a major difference in the count of squares visited. I did a quick test to verify this on OP's site. Just incrementing a sample hash by 1 does substantially change the visual. It's possible two completely different hashes show similar visuals, but I don't think two similar hashes normally do. Hence no reason to re-hash.