5 ms·
SHA256 is an option. It's secure enough for Bitcoin.
by colordrops 5y ago
SHA256 is an option. It's secure enough for Bitcoin.
- acchow 5y agoProving cryptographic security by financial incentive seems to be the most useful aspect of blockchains.
- quickthrower2 5y agoSomeone that can crack cryptocurrency needs to figure out how to extract value without spooking the entire market into collapsing. That is why I think they’ll put more effort into exploiting badly written smart contracts than the underlying blockchain. Ethereum projects get hacked every day, hackers make millions, but no one loses faith. More of a gravy train. Really you need someone with a mission to crack bitcoin, not someone looking just to make money.
- paulpauper 5y agojust break into a dormant wallet or multiple old wallets . you only need just a few thousand btc to be set for life and for it to be undetected. depends on what you mean by crack.
- Vladimof 5y agobut if bitcoin/sha256 gets cracked, it isn't a big deal, because miners will probably agree to move to something better and revert bad transactions...
- quickthrower2 5y agoBitcoin is a brand not a fixed protocol (see the Bitcoin Cash fork, for example…)
- Vladimof 5y agoPretty much... Bitcoin is whatever the majority (of miners) agrees it to be... and it could change at any time.
- postalrat 5y agoSure. But how about all the addresses out there that won't move the coins to an updated address? They would stay vulnerable.
- quickthrower2 5y agoYes this relies on some foresight, to move well in time of the zero-day.
- unobatbayar 5y agoPeople seem to overestimate the security of SHA256 as compared to SHA1. Although it is definitely better than SHA1, the improvement is ever so slightly: SHA1 : ec1623b7a94ed3d8feaffaf7580df3eca4f5f5ca SHA256 : e2b0c44298fc0c149afbf4c8996fb92427ae41e4649b934ca495991b7852b855
- michaelscott 5y agoA "mere" 2^96 improvement; the security between the two is a universe apart.