See More CryptosHome

SHA

Safe Haven

Show Trading View Graph

Mentions (24Hr)

1

-50.00% Today

Reddit Posts

r/CryptoMoonShotsSee Post

Introducing Galleoncoin / GALE : PoW privacy coin with masternodes.

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Comparing Supercomputer networks to Bitcoin - How to convert exaflop to exahash?

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Comparing Supercomputer networks to BTC - How to convert exaflop to exahash?

r/BitcoinSee Post

Bitcoin computes this SHA-256 hash function 550,000,000,000,000,000,000x times EVERY second

r/BitcoinSee Post

Entropy: only 121 bits (vs 128) on Blockstream Jade using dice rolls?

r/BitcoinSee Post

Why BTC is considered safe ?

r/BitcoinSee Post

Wise men still seek him...a Christmas thought

r/BitcoinSee Post

Do you think that Quantum Computing poses a threat to BTC encryption, algorithm, and/or security?

r/BitcoinSee Post

Tatsuaki Omamoto - creator of SHA-256 (1996!!!)

r/BitcoinSee Post

A.I. Could break bitcoin/SHA256

r/BitcoinSee Post

Bitcoin Qubit SHA256

r/BitcoinSee Post

Is it possible for the energy input to break the difficulty adjustment?

r/BitcoinSee Post

Bitcoin SHA-256 algorithm Quantum protection

r/BitcoinSee Post

Bitcoin Quantum Protection

r/BitcoinSee Post

Bitcoin Quantum Protection

r/BitcoinSee Post

Are P2WSH addresses the most quantum-secure addresses?

r/BitcoinSee Post

Will AI destroy bitcoin?

r/BitcoinSee Post

Does SHA256 have limitation?

r/BitcoinSee Post

Can anyone here explain how / why it is not possible to get AI involved in the bitcoin mining industry / process?

r/BitcoinSee Post

Is Bitcoin really created by the government?

r/BitcoinSee Post

Verifying latest block

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Decrypt the Shadows: Unearth a New Order of Decentralization [SERIOUS]

r/BitcoinSee Post

Bitcoin is such a large idea its hard to wrap my mind around it

r/BitcoinSee Post

Unexpected Record: Balance of 50k Bitcoins Found in Calculation - Seeking Advice

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Potential Security Loophole for all cryptocurrency.

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Funny story about WIRED magazine and how they threw away (and lost forever) 13.35 BTC in 2013

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Funny story about WIRED magazine and how they threw away (and lost forever) 13.35 BTC in 2013

r/BitcoinSee Post

China’s new supercomputer can crack SHA256

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

SHA3D (our algorithm) isn't prone to 51% attack.

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Celebrating 12 Years of our Digital silver - Litecoin

r/BitcoinSee Post

ELI5: If Bitcoin Mining is really just guessing inputs to SHA256 until an output matching the difficulty comes up, how does a miner know what guesses to avoid (previous failed guesses) in order to mine most efficiently ?

r/BitcoinSee Post

Bitmain Antminer S21 Hyd

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Is The National Security Agency (NSA) Behind The Invention of Bitcoin?

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

This Engineer Is Creating a Bitcoin Game Changer

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

[1998] Hal Finney: A zero-knowledge proof of possession of a pre-image of a SHA-1 hash

r/BitcoinSee Post

[1998] Hal Finney: A zero-knowledge proof of possession of a pre-image of a SHA-1 hash

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Bitcoin mining on the blockchain, what exactly does a miner do? What is an ASIC? How the mining difficulty is adjusted? What if two miners find the answers at the same time? This post aims for the complete beginners as it is explained in very simple terms.

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

A really well done & informative description of LTC by NDAX - A Canadian Exchange. Bravo!

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Satoshi, NSA and the SHA CRYPTOGRAPHY Algorithms

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Ken Shirriff showing how to mine bitcoin with pen and paper

r/BitcoinSee Post

Sha256/Nonce Question

r/BitcoinSee Post

ELIF - Why aren't ML and GNNs used to solve hashing in a Traveling Salesman Problem context?

r/BitcoinSee Post

One about Mining, Proof-of-Work and difficulty.

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

One about UTXO's, new outputs, inputs and previous outputs.

r/BitcoinSee Post

One about UTXO's, new outputs, inputs and previous outputs.

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Bitcoin can survive brute force attack it's infeasible or impossible?

r/BitcoinSee Post

Satoshi era key

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

One about HD-wallets, master keypair, child individual keys.

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

One about HD-wallets, master keypair, child individual keys.

r/BitcoinSee Post

One about master key pair, child individual keys, addresses and signatures.

r/BitcoinSee Post

One about master keypair, child individual keys, addresses and signatures.

r/BitcoinSee Post

One about HD-wallets, master keypair, child individual keys.

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

19 years ago today, Hal Finney officially released Reusable Proof of Work (RPoW)

r/BitcoinSee Post

why is it always a result of a SHA256 ?

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Lets Talk Quantum Computing

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

What is a blockchain? - A noob explanation

r/BitcoinSee Post

Quantum computers coming back

r/BitcoinSee Post

Potential vulnerability?

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

TIL: Bitcoin 101 - Hashing Algorithms

r/BitcoinSee Post

Open Source Initative | Documenting Bitcoin in a new way

r/BitcoinSee Post

Writing a summary on HD wallets, first part done, correct so far ?

r/BitcoinSee Post

Final part of SHA256 structure part.

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

[ANN] AsicCoin (ASC) | SHA256 - The coin for ASIC Mining!

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

This sub truly blows my mind….

r/BitcoinSee Post

I'm really worried about SHA-256

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

How to (instruction) quickly make wallet with right balance of safety and usability

r/BitcoinSee Post

Verifying bitcoin core

r/BitcoinSee Post

Bitcoin uses SHA 256 hash functions

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Flaws of Bitcoin

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

[Serious] Is Bitcoin secure? A reaction to “BTC whales are waking up, were their wallets hacked?"

r/BitcoinSee Post

Satoshis secret message

r/BitcoinSee Post

SHA-246 Visual w/ Mining Header

r/BitcoinSee Post

How can I fix this?

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Countering all the major anti-crypto arguments in one post.

r/BitcoinSee Post

Part of SHA256 Visual Mapping

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

A quick explanation the CZ Interpol Red Notice Rumour

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

phishing email "from" coinbase passes dkim?

r/BitcoinSee Post

Can ChatGPT4 have the computational power to break the SHA-256 encryption? Or does that have nothing to do with it?

r/BitcoinSee Post

Specter verify SHA256SUMS.asc Not Matching

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Computer Science IB Extended Essay

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Quantum computing and crypto developments

r/BitcoinSee Post

SHA 256 is a cryptographic hash function that is used to secure and validate transactions on the Bitcoin network. This algorithm was originally developed by the National Security Agency (NSA) in the United States as part of a series of secure hash algorithms.

r/BitcoinSee Post

Who would've thought that the algorithm used by the world's most popular cryptocurrency was originally designed for space exploration? That's right, NASA's SHA-256 algorithm is the backbone of Bitcoin's security and immutability.

r/BitcoinSee Post

Bitcoin’s SHA256, nonce hitting above the target.

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

It's a Trap!

r/BitcoinSee Post

What do you guys think will happen to bitcoin if quantum computers break SHA256 and solve the discrete logarithm problem (ECDLP)?

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

SHA256 vs Scrypt: How Comparing Hash Rates is Misleading | NKMAG

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Litecoin vs Ripple: Differences, and Everything You Need to Know

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

MoneyShow announces the Peercoin blockchain will be used as an important part of its new newswire service.

r/BitcoinSee Post

How do I generate master key from the root seed

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Storing seed phrase on encrypted USB drives

r/BitcoinSee Post

I found the money, but I can't get it out

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Going back to basics, Bitcoin 101

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

How does mining work?

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

How mining works?

r/BitcoinSee Post

How mining works?

r/BitcoinSee Post

A few questions.

r/BitcoinSee Post

SHA256 Vs. Scrypt

r/BitcoinSee Post

Does Quantum Computing pose a threat to SHA-256?

r/CryptoCurrencySee Post

Do this to verify your BTC holdings in Binance new Merkle Tree Proof of Reserves And Liabilities

Mentions

Things have almost reached a level where Multisig is beginner friendly. It goes all the way back to Bitcoin Armory Lockboxes in approx 2012. https://bitcoiner.guide/multisig/ There are paid services like Casa, Unchained and Nunchuk that can hold your hand and take you through it, for a fee. The nuisance at the moment is the evolution of standards, and subsequent desktop wallet and hardware wallet updates. Hardware wallets use PSBT, BIP48, Animated QR codes, and Blockchain Commons UR/Envelope formats for the multisig wallet descriptor. Then there will be PSBT2, MuSig, Taproot, BBQr. Every time there is a major software update, you need to download a new desktop wallet version, a new hardware wallet firmware, update PGP keys, check the PGP and SHA256 signatures match, flash the new firmware via MicroSD card. Far too complex and tedious for a beginner, let alone the actual steps of backing up 3 - 5 mnemonic seeds and storing a full copy of **all cosigners' XPUBs** and wallet descriptor, with each geographically separated mnemonic seed, plus then remember the hardware wallet PIN for 3 - 5 different hardware wallets.

Be smarter than this. Think for yourself. Don’t rely on randoms on Reddit. If you like btc, then that’s great. I like it too. But don’t trust me or my analysis and ideas. Go study what BTC is. Learn the underlying principles. Read the BTC white paper. Work to understand it even if parts are too technical. Read about SHA-256 hashing algorithm. Get into the weeds of how mining works. Know what a node is and what it does. Try to understand why BTC uses double SHA-256. Same with the protocol rules and validations and the consensus mechanisms. Just learn it. When you understand the science and mechanics behind BTC (the how), then move on to learn about the why. Check out the Bitcoin Standard and other literature that will add more context on why it matters etc. Educate yourself and people will respect when you are a rich man. And you will be able to respect yourself too. Otherwise, even if you make a lot of money on BTC, you’ll be no different than any other idiot who risked the family farm on black and got lucky… There are plenty of resources on YouTube and on many universities computer science dept websites. All the info you need is fully and freely available from reputable intelligent sources.

Mentions:#BTC#SHA

Sure my favorite at the moment is his talk on consensus algorithm and a relatively deep dive into SHA-256. Check out the comments as well. Implementation of Adam Beck's Hashing algorithm is so fascinating. Attempting to fathom 10^77 combinations is hurting my head some. https://youtu.be/fw3WkySh_Ho?si=ggXIz4F9iuYIvGfw

Mentions:#SHA

SHA256

Mentions:#SHA

Thaw SHA Blows

Mentions:#SHA

Nope. The current miners are Application-Specific Integrated Circuits (ASICs). That "application specific" part means they're designed entirely to run the SHA-286 hashing required to mine bitcoin. So if you run some other hardware, you're not remotely efficient. IF your electricity is free, let it run But running a normal computer is basicaly lottery odds. [https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/16q9d9d/is\_buying\_an\_average\_pc\_to\_mine\_bitcoin\_a\_bit/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/16q9d9d/is_buying_an_average_pc_to_mine_bitcoin_a_bit/)

Mentions:#SHA

I started reading about SHA and elliptic curve cryptography bc I wanted to learn how public/private keys function. Needless to say, I'll just trust that it works :)

Mentions:#SHA

Most BTC miners also switch mine BCH when it’s profitable for them to do so. BCH, even with a fraction of the SHA256 hash-rate, still has better security than 99% of other chains. Certainly more than ETH, where they can rewrite the history of their mutable chain if they don’t like the hacker. But if using “Bitcoin” off chain is for you because they told you to, and number go up, then good luck gambling. None of my Bitcoin Cash transactions have ever been double-spent or re-written in a 51% attack. They instantly arrive with 0-conf transactions, like BTC used to work before Segwit and RBF.

That would certainly make for a much slower attack than md5 or the various SHA hashes that other brainwallet authors have chosen. I might go ahead and add a bcrypt mode to my cracker since you mentioned it; until you said this it's never occurred to me that there might be an overlap between blowfish enjoyers and brainwallet aficionados.

Mentions:#SHA

[Obsolete Brainwallet Style](https://bitcoinwiki.org/wiki/brainwallet#Obsolete_Brainwallet_Style) > An early old-style brainwallet was created by by memorization of a passphrase and converting it a private key with a hashing or key derivation algorithm (example: SHA256). That private key is then used to compute a Bitcoin address. This method was found to be very insecure and should not be used. Humans are not a good source of entropy. Using a single address also has problems associated with address reuse.

Mentions:#SHA

This doesn't work, SHA256 is irreversible

Mentions:#SHA

-Fiat Standard -Bitcoin Standard -Creature of Jekyll Island -Sovereign Individual Those books should tie you up for about 2 months. Then go ahead and -Listen to Michael Saylor/Robert Breedlove What is money Ep 1-10 -Michael Saylor vs Frank Gupta FIAT vs GOLD debate That should easily cover your first thousand hours. Then learn technicals. I did -What is binary -What is hexadecimal -what is a hash function -What is SHA-256 -What is a merkle tree -What is a merkle root -What is difficulty adjustment -What is RIPEMD-160 -What is “mining” -What is the nonce -how does bitcoin stop double spend There’s so many more you will discover the deeper you go. I’m about 2500 hours dedicated to learning and still learning stuff everyday. Good luck

Mentions:#GOLD#SHA

No bud. Just no. Below are the Network & Hardware reqs for a rpc node. Source: https://docs.solanalabs.com/de/operations/requirements Networking: Internet service should be at least 1GBbit/s symmetric, commercial. 10GBit/s preferred. Hardware Recommendations The hardware recommendations below are provided as a guide. Operators are encouraged to do their own performance testing. CPU 12 cores / 24 threads, or more 2.8GHz base clock speed, or faster SHA extensions instruction support AMD Gen 3 or newer Intel Ice Lake or newer AVX2 instruction support (to use official release binaries, self-compile otherwise) Support for AVX512f is helpful RAM 256GB or more Error Correction Code (ECC) memory is suggested Motherboard with 512GB capacity suggested Disk PCIe Gen3 x4 NVME SSD, or better Accounts: 500GB, or larger. High TBW (Total Bytes Written) Ledger: 1TB or larger. High TBW suggested OS: (Optional) 500GB, or larger. SATA OK The OS may be installed on the ledger disk, though testing has shown better performance with the ledger on its own disk Accounts and ledger can be stored on the same disk, however due to high IOPS, this is not recommended The Samsung 970 and 980 Pro series SSDs are popular with the validator community GPUs Not necessary at this time Operators in the validator community do no use GPUs currently RPC Node Recommendations The hardware recommendations above should be considered bare minimums if the validator is intended to be employed as an RPC node. To provide full functionality and improved reliability, the following adjustments should be made. CPU 16 cores / 32 threads, or more RAM 512 GB or more if account-index is used Disk Consider a larger ledger disk if longer transaction history is required Accounts and ledger should not be stored on the same disk

Source: https://docs.solanalabs.com/de/operations/requirements Hardware Recommendations The hardware recommendations below are provided as a guide. Operators are encouraged to do their own performance testing. CPU 12 cores / 24 threads, or more 2.8GHz base clock speed, or faster SHA extensions instruction support AMD Gen 3 or newer Intel Ice Lake or newer AVX2 instruction support (to use official release binaries, self-compile otherwise) Support for AVX512f is helpful RAM 256GB or more Error Correction Code (ECC) memory is suggested Motherboard with 512GB capacity suggested Disk PCIe Gen3 x4 NVME SSD, or better Accounts: 500GB, or larger. High TBW (Total Bytes Written) Ledger: 1TB or larger. High TBW suggested OS: (Optional) 500GB, or larger. SATA OK The OS may be installed on the ledger disk, though testing has shown better performance with the ledger on its own disk Accounts and ledger can be stored on the same disk, however due to high IOPS, this is not recommended The Samsung 970 and 980 Pro series SSDs are popular with the validator community GPUs Not necessary at this time Operators in the validator community do no use GPUs currently RPC Node Recommendations The hardware recommendations above should be considered bare minimums if the validator is intended to be employed as an RPC node. To provide full functionality and improved reliability, the following adjustments should be made. CPU 16 cores / 32 threads, or more RAM 512 GB or more if account-index is used Disk Consider a larger ledger disk if longer transaction history is required Accounts and ledger should not be stored on the same disk

All I see is Wealth Redistribution 🔱 Steps: 1. Inject a payload in image 2. Send to all WhatsApp numbers cuz WhatsApp downloads automatically and payload enters the phone 3. If one drive is connected with pc we can send virus directly to pc if the auto sync is turned on in pc 4. Connect all the hackers who have done that and who can do that 5. Hack all the mining rigs around the world leading to 51% power which is hacked SHA256 6. The above image is the one

Mentions:#SHA

Whoever gets the SHA hash under the threshold first, immediately packs up the block and broadcasts it to the network (flooding mode). If more than one miner finds the hash and they both broadcast their (necessarily somewhat different) blocks, then it's possible that one part of the network accepts the miner A block as the correct one, and some other nodes will accept the miner B block as correct. This discrepancy potential is built into the design in the sense that it resolves itself (and all the nodes settle on a sinngle correct next block) within a very short time, typically the next block. The rule that solves this problem is simple but not very obvious at first sight: accept the longest chain as the correct one. It takes a bit of reflection with paper and pencil to see that it does work. Hashes cannot be precomputed because it's not known if within next microsecond some other miner finds the next block which means redoing the hashing and all the effort was a waste of resources.

Mentions:#SHA

Safe Haven $SHA

Mentions:#SHA

#Dogecoin Con-Arguments Below is a Dogecoin con-argument written by Chysce. > Dogecoin was [launched in 2013](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogecoin#:~:text=In%20addition%2C%20they%20wanted%20to,making%20the%20idea%20a%20reality) as a satirical response to the hype surrounding crypto. In 2015, its creators stepped away from the project. The aim of its creators was to develop a coin that would not be taken seriously by investors, however despite their intentions, Dogecoin still attracted a significant number of speculators. In fact, it became the world's largest memecoin during the first half of 2021, with its value rocketing over 15,000%. > > Like Bitcoin Dogecoin uses the proof-of-work to validate transactions. Doge is merge mined at the same time with litecoin. There are [speculations](https://cointelegraph.com/news/rumor-has-it-that-dogecoin-could-shift-to-proof-of-stake-what-does-that-mean-for-miners) that Doge will switch to Proof of Stake soon but there is no definitive news on this as of yet. > > **>> Doge has no intrinsic value** > > In the very essence Doge has no value. Apart from [sporadic use](https://coingate.com/blog/post/doge-support-much-wow) for online tipping or as a means of payment for some businesses, it does not have a unique use case or solve any real-world problems. Its value is solely based on its popularity. While this can produce exciting short-term gains it is not a viable strategy for long-term investing. > > **>> High Volatility** > > The price of Doge is highly volatile, making it a risky investment. It's price is mostly driven by the Elon Musk's tweets and memes. Nowadays there are even bots that market buy Doge whenever Elon tweets something about it. These pumps are short lived and can cause a big spike in liquidations for unprepared investors. Elon Musk also appears to have distanced himself from Dogecoin in recent times. He did not include Dogecoin as a payment option for Twitter, and he also [tweeted](https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1631720134636367872?lang=en) that he is more interested in AI than crypto as of late. > > **>> Unlimited supply** > > Unlike Bitcoin, Dogecoin has no hard cap [no hard cap](https://www.sofi.com/learn/content/will-dogecoin-ever-be-capped/) on the total supply, which means it could potentially be inflated indefinitely. It's current supply increase is [\~4% per year](https://www.analyticsinsight.net/heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-dogecoin-inflation/#:~:text=For%20anyone%20buying%20Dogecoin%20to,4%25%20in%20price%20each%20year). > > \>> **Lack of Development and future narratives** > > Dogecoin has a relatively small development team, and the project has not seen significant updates or improvements in recent years. Additionally very few people run full nodes. Finally there is no clear long-term narrative that could cause its wide adoption > > \>> **Security** > > Dogecoin's mining algorithm is less secure than others, making it more susceptible to 51% attacks. Doge uses a different mining algorithm than Bitcoin, called [Scrypt](https://learn.bybit.com/altcoins/how-to-mine-dogecoin/), which is generally considered less secure than Bitcoin's SHA-256 algorithm. [Scrypt was designed to be more memory-intensive](https://cryptobook.nakov.com/mac-and-key-derivation/scrypt), making it harder for ASIC miners to dominate the network and creating a more level playing field for CPU and GPU miners. However, this also makes it easier for attackers to launch 51% attacks. > > On top of that Doge has a much smaller mining community and less overall network hash rate than Bitcoin. This means that it could be more vulnerable to attacks from miners who control a large portion of the network's hashrate. > > And finally Doge's unlimited supply means that there is less of an incentive for miners to secure the network. ***** Would you like to learn more? Check out the [Cointest archive](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_Dogecoin) to find submissions for other topics.

Mentions:#SHA#CPU#GPU

Yes. And quantum computing will eventually advance to point of being able to break bitcoin’s SHA-256… If technology advances to point that we are able to harvest resources in our solar system effectively, and with appropriate advances in automation, we would enter post-scarcity economy, and money, in any form becomes essentially useless. Last year, a meteorite zoomed past earth that contained like 10.000 quadrillion USD worth of metals.

Mentions:#SHA

I admit, I know very little about quantum computing but if technological progress get to the point where SHA-256 can be cracked don't you think we have bigger problem on our hand - like, every single bank account, email, brokerage account can be accessed.

Mentions:#SHA

How would the cracking of SHA256 affect the average Chinese rice farmer?

Mentions:#SHA

While there are risks to BTC (SHA-256 cracked / global power failure / nuclear war), the realisation of any of these risks pose a much greater threat to humanity than to BTC. Basically - if the worst happens BTC won't be the priority.

Mentions:#BTC#SHA

It's not that finding a solution for a block takes X steps, it's that finding a solution for a block takes random guesses, and on average a solution will be found in X guesses. It's mathematically the same as a lottery. The more computation power you have, the more lottery entries you can create. The first person to randomly guess a valid solution wins. Technically, you would win by computing a SHA hash by hand with pencil and paper, it's just your one guess vs the BTC network's collective 630 septillion guesses per second.

Mentions:#SHA#BTC

#Dogecoin Con-Arguments Below is a Dogecoin con-argument written by Chysce. > Dogecoin was [launched in 2013](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogecoin#:~:text=In%20addition%2C%20they%20wanted%20to,making%20the%20idea%20a%20reality) as a satirical response to the hype surrounding crypto. In 2015, its creators stepped away from the project. The aim of its creators was to develop a coin that would not be taken seriously by investors, however despite their intentions, Dogecoin still attracted a significant number of speculators. In fact, it became the world's largest memecoin during the first half of 2021, with its value rocketing over 15,000%. > > Like Bitcoin Dogecoin uses the proof-of-work to validate transactions. Doge is merge mined at the same time with litecoin. There are [speculations](https://cointelegraph.com/news/rumor-has-it-that-dogecoin-could-shift-to-proof-of-stake-what-does-that-mean-for-miners) that Doge will switch to Proof of Stake soon but there is no definitive news on this as of yet. > > **>> Doge has no intrinsic value** > > In the very essence Doge has no value. Apart from [sporadic use](https://coingate.com/blog/post/doge-support-much-wow) for online tipping or as a means of payment for some businesses, it does not have a unique use case or solve any real-world problems. Its value is solely based on its popularity. While this can produce exciting short-term gains it is not a viable strategy for long-term investing. > > **>> High Volatility** > > The price of Doge is highly volatile, making it a risky investment. It's price is mostly driven by the Elon Musk's tweets and memes. Nowadays there are even bots that market buy Doge whenever Elon tweets something about it. These pumps are short lived and can cause a big spike in liquidations for unprepared investors. Elon Musk also appears to have distanced himself from Dogecoin in recent times. He did not include Dogecoin as a payment option for Twitter, and he also [tweeted](https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1631720134636367872?lang=en) that he is more interested in AI than crypto as of late. > > **>> Unlimited supply** > > Unlike Bitcoin, Dogecoin has no hard cap [no hard cap](https://www.sofi.com/learn/content/will-dogecoin-ever-be-capped/) on the total supply, which means it could potentially be inflated indefinitely. It's current supply increase is [\~4% per year](https://www.analyticsinsight.net/heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-dogecoin-inflation/#:~:text=For%20anyone%20buying%20Dogecoin%20to,4%25%20in%20price%20each%20year). > > \>> **Lack of Development and future narratives** > > Dogecoin has a relatively small development team, and the project has not seen significant updates or improvements in recent years. Additionally very few people run full nodes. Finally there is no clear long-term narrative that could cause its wide adoption > > \>> **Security** > > Dogecoin's mining algorithm is less secure than others, making it more susceptible to 51% attacks. Doge uses a different mining algorithm than Bitcoin, called [Scrypt](https://learn.bybit.com/altcoins/how-to-mine-dogecoin/), which is generally considered less secure than Bitcoin's SHA-256 algorithm. [Scrypt was designed to be more memory-intensive](https://cryptobook.nakov.com/mac-and-key-derivation/scrypt), making it harder for ASIC miners to dominate the network and creating a more level playing field for CPU and GPU miners. However, this also makes it easier for attackers to launch 51% attacks. > > On top of that Doge has a much smaller mining community and less overall network hash rate than Bitcoin. This means that it could be more vulnerable to attacks from miners who control a large portion of the network's hashrate. > > And finally Doge's unlimited supply means that there is less of an incentive for miners to secure the network. ***** Would you like to learn more? Check out the [Cointest archive](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_Dogecoin) to find submissions for other topics.

Mentions:#SHA#CPU#GPU

None of those are a back-door, and are for practical purposes impossible, so you are still yet to explain a possible 'backdoor'? SHA256 was specifically selected due to its lack of ability for a backdoor to be built in, (ie selecting basic parameters that it would be almost impossible to hide a collision behind)

Mentions:#SHA

>Half of the meaningful data points are sha256 hashes Shows that you do not know what encryption is. Cryptography consists of many different types of algorithms. sha256 \*\*IS NOT\*\* encryption. It is hashing. >USES encryption No it does not. If it is the opposite, it would be trivial for you to prove me wrong by showing exactly where it does so. >go create a new private key lol. Creating a private key is not encryption either. >A hash is a output of an encryption method. No it is not. It's the output of a hashing method. Hashing algorithms (for example SHA), Signature algorithms (example ECDSA) and Encryption (RSA) are all part of cryptography, but they all do very different things.

Mentions:#SHA

I'm so impressed that you know what I think You're right. I'm so dumb, I don't know what a node does. But let's pretend for a minute that a node is a computer that runs some open source software, that is decentralised by design. And maybe that software has some strict rules about how to validate transactions and create blocks where a fixed amount of bitcoin is issued to the wallet that was first to generate a SHA256 hash of all the transactions plus a random number with a sufficient amount of zeros at the start that made it really difficult to compute. Now let's pretend that I'm a complete idiot that thinks that if enough people decide they want to change that open source software that can't because they don't understand how decentralised networks operate. 😂

Mentions:#SHA

If an exploit were found in the cryptography underlying Bitcoin, either in its hashing algorithm (SHA-256) or in its digital signature algorithm (ECDSA), it would effectively end the currency. If digital signatures could be forged due to the exploit, attackers might be able to send transactions from wallets without having actual access to the private keys. This could undermine the transaction immutability that blockchain technology is known for, allowing users to spend the same bitcoins more than once. Exploits in the hashing algorithm could allow miners to find block solutions faster than intended, potentially centralizing mining power or disrupting the normal creation of blocks. There are is a big list of hash and signature algorithms you shouldn’t use today because there are exploits. MD5, SHA-1, DES, RC4, etc. One day SHA-256 and ECDSA will be on that list. It could be due to advances in computing power like quantum computing, or it could be due to flaws found in the algorithms themselves. Result is the same, Bitcoin go bye bye, anyone holding Bitcoin will be screwed.

Mentions:#SHA#DES

I've never tried to study SHA256, but couldn't it be a complex math problem? I get what you're saying... it isn't doing math like we think of it... solving some equation or adding up an Excel spreadsheet. But, there must be some complex math involved in doing a SHA256 hash, right?

Mentions:#SHA

A pet peeve I have is when people make the statement that miners are solving a complex math problem. It's not. It's simply brute force attempts to find a proper hash. For example, go to the site: [SHA256 - Online Tools (emn178.github.io)](https://emn178.github.io/online-tools/sha256.html) Type in a string of characters in the input field until you find a hash beginning with the number 8. Its pretty simple, right? Now try to input a string of characters that begins with 88888. How long does it take? That's what miners are doing and what everyone refers to as "a complex math problem." Bitcoin adjusts its requirement every two weeks to estimate that the miners will likely find the proper hash/block every ten minutes. Depending on the amount of hash attempts made to find blocks over the last two weeks the difficulty may be increase or decreased.

Mentions:#SHA

Agreed. ChatGPT perpetuates the false narrative that this is a complex math problem. It's not a complex math problem. It's simply brute force attempts to find a proper hash. For example, go to the site: [SHA256 - Online Tools (emn178.github.io)](https://emn178.github.io/online-tools/sha256.html) Type in a string of characters in the input field until you find a hash beginning with the number 8. Its pretty simple, right? Now try to input a string of characters that begins with 88888. How long does it take? Thats what miners are doing and what everyone refers to as "a complex math problem." It's not. Bitcoin adjusts its requirement every two weeks to estimate that the miners will likely find the proper hash/block every ten minutes. Depending on the amount of hash attempts made to find blocks over the last two weeks the difficulty may be increased or decreased.

Mentions:#SHA

It’s true with a super computer where you can test insanely large samples of data to find collisions. As of now SHA-256 is still good hashing algorithm.

Mentions:#SHA

If that's true then wouldn't SHA-256 be an awful choice for block hashing? I thought the whole reason Bitcoin uses SHA-256 is because of how collision resistant it is. If what you're saying is true, then it should be trivial to swap out legitimate blocks with fraudulent ones that happen to produce the same hash, no?

Mentions:#SHA

Here is an explanation... Bitcoin works like so: You get a public key that represents a point on the elliptic curve (ECDSA/secp256k1) - it has a corresponding private key that is never revealed. This public key is hashed twice. First with SHA256, second with RIPEMD-160 - this is your address (basically). When you send a transaction from that address, you sign for it in such a way that it reveals your public key. Each address has its own public key that is only revealed once (if used correctly / not reusing addresses). There is some fear that Bitcoin might be vulnerable to quantum attacks. For people who reuse addresses this fear may have some merit. For people who never reuse addresses this fear is unmerited due to the double hashing. I'll explain further. Hashing works by an iterative process that loses information at every step. For example, your hashing algorithm might be "double the number, add 7, drop the last digit, repeat 512 times." This is a bad hashing algorithm but demonstrates the problem with reversing a hashed output. Imagine you started with 13; you'd double it, getting 26, add 7, getting 33, then drop the final digit, getting 3. How would you reverse such a process? Well, with this simple example, you could. But with cryptographic hashing functions generally, you could not, because step one would be to guess at what the lost information was. With this simple algorithm you have a 1 of 10 chance of being right and have to guess correctly 512 times in a row. Quantum computers work like so: It is not accurate to think of quantum computers as "really fast computers" - they work in fundamentally different ways. Classical computers have instruction sets that processes instructions iteratively until an algorithm has run to completion. This is why classical computers can solve problems, generally, if those problems have known algorithms. The downside is that they don't get to skip any steps. Quantum computers solve problems by setting up qubits into a superposition of states, then harnessing some known result in quantum mechanics to solve _certain kinds_ of problems. An example of this is Schor's algorithm which leverages the fact there is a known quantum observation such that collapsing wave functions have an associated periodicity that happens to require a solution that has, as a component, an equation that can be reformed as a solution to large prime number factorization. As a result, setting up a quantum computer in just such a way can be used to "do it in reverse" (that is, instead of using the equations to predict what a wavefunction will do, set up a wavefunction in just such a way that we can observe what the solution was, which allows us to factor large prime numbers - at least in theory). Conclusion: It is possible that quantum computers may allow us to solve the discrete logarithm problem similar to how they allow us to solve for factoring large numbers (like with Shor's algorithm). This would break the ECDSA mentioned above in the description of how Bitcoin works. This is because problems like the discrete logarithm problem and large number factorization seem to have corollaries in the physical/quantum world (that is, these math problems describe quantum phenomena, therefore we can exploit quantum phenomena to solve these math problems). It is much much less likely that quantum computers will allow us to solve SHA256 or RIPEMD-160 because these are human inventions. There is no good reason to think that "double the number, add 7, repeat 512 times" has corollaries in the quantum world since the process is a human invention (even though it uses mathematical primitives). It would be like discovering that a DNA helix was written in English. And even if there were some flaw to be exploited by quantum computers in SHA256 or RIPEMD-160, it would be very strange to discover flaws in both because they work so differently. Is it possible? Yes, but... wildly unlikely. Too much time has been spent on this topic by people who shouldn't be spending any time on this topic because they don't even understand the fundamentals.

Mentions:#SHA#DNA

This is just panic and hype. There's already post quantum cryptography. Even quantum would take a very long time to break SHA256 unless there was a flaw discovered.

Mentions:#SHA

Quantum computers cannot break SHA-N in poly(N) time. They take 2\^(N/2) as opposed to 2\^N time on classical computers to break it. Breaking SHA-256 will NOT be possible with a quantum computer the size of our entire planet. Stealing private keys on the other hand with a quantum computer... will be trivial. That is the only and yet still fundamental risk that quantum computers pose to bitcoin.

Mentions:#SHA

It's not useless. When people talk about what they don't understand I have no choice but to handhold you through the issues here. I will address your comments one last time. Even the "it's not recommended to reuse btc" DOES NOT protect you from quantum computing. See below: 1. Every-time you pay you exposed your public key. Your public key isn't stored in the transactions (only a hash of it) but when you submit a transaction you expose your public key (this is HOW they verify your wallet's digital signature). Do you understand this? Why would a miner actually submit your transaction IF they could just take your coins and keep it for themselves? Suppose you SUBMIT your transaction (it's not yet on the chain, you are asking miners to include it) to two miners Alice and Bob and you offer to pay a fee of $5 to whoever successfully includes it in the next block. Bob tells Alice "forget papy66, I already stole their private keys, I will pay you $10 to ignore papy's transaction and submit this other transaction that transfers ALL of papy66's money to ME onto the blockchain". Alice, if she hasn't already stolen your info first will say "sure $10 is better than $5" etc... Every time you pay, IF someone had a quantum computer, they could steal all those coins, EVEN THOUGH, you NEVER reused your address AFTER paying ONCE. Just the act of submitting a SINGLE transaction, NOT EVEN getting it onto the blockchain, means they can drain that address. 2. "And yes a QC could mine block faster" -- by a square root. Do you understand how meaningless Quantum Computing IS in terms of breaking SHA256? It will take a SINGLE small adjustment of difficulty to UNDO ALL the efficiency gains that Quantum Computing provide in terms of mining. The only valid opinion here is 1. Big quantum computers break bitcoin AS bitcoin stands right now precisely because Bitcoin uses secp256k1. If bitcoin can change the transaction scheme in the future to some lattice based scheme or other quantum-resistant scheme this might be okay. 2. Quantum computers will have no noticeable effect on mining. A very minor increase in difficult will destroy ANY perceived advantage that Quantum computers had. Of course that increase in difficulty means everybody NEEDS a quantum computer just to keep up, but that's already how it is today with ASICs.

Mentions:#SINGLE#SHA

I understand your point, about the translation of private keys from one chain to the forked chain. There could be a mechanism to secure it. I imagine the SHA256 hasing algo could stay the same while ECDSA which is vulnerable would be replaced with a quantum resistant one.

Mentions:#SHA

>Not SHA-256. It’s mathematically impossible to assume a reversed a 256bit hash (or 32 character string) can hold data much much larger the hash itself. If I hash 1GB of text, there’s absolutely no way to reverse the original 1GB of data out of 256bits I thought about this over lunch and I think it's incorrect to say it's mathematically impossible. It's certainly infeasible and impractical given current day computing limitations but you could theoretically do a brute force and guess-and-compare outputs right? I mean that might take a million years with today's processing limits but who knows what it'll be in the future

Mentions:#SHA

NS and other intelligent agencies alike are most likely under the impression that AES and RSA will be reversible someday with quantum computers. Not SHA-256. It’s mathematically impossible to assume a reversed a 256bit hash (or 32 character string) can hold data much much larger the hash itself. If I hash 1GB of text, there’s absolutely no way to reverse the original 1GB of data out of 256bits.

Mentions:#NS#AES#SHA

I have no idea what that algorithm is. I don't think anyone would deny the far-reaching implications of reversing a SHA-256 hash. It would literally alter the trajectory of life on earth.

Mentions:#SHA

>lots of people I worked with couldn't set the clock on the microwave That might be true of "IT pro" but everyone in my tech shop is an IC. Half of us are SDE2 and SDE3s from FAANG, myself included. We don't enforce PIPs as strictly as Amazon but we do a pretty good job of forcing out underperformers. Map, encode, compress, translate are all close approximations of what hashing achieves. If someone reports that they "compressed values using SHA256" and a listener is unable to understand what that means, I'm probably going to assume the listener is an idiot.

Mentions:#IC#SHA

Quantum Computing is actually inferior for mining bitcoin than SHA Processors…. Quantum Computing doesn’t automatically do everything better, just some things.

Mentions:#SHA

That doesn't work for old coins that don't move to a new wallet after the encryption method is changed, which is the whole point of the OP. The quantum threat is real when you consider how important Satoshi's unmoved coins are to the Bitcoin narrative. Think about it like this, if the encryption method changes, how do you prove that you own the Bitcoin in a particular wallet? It's not like the protocol has an internal mailing list that can send you your new private keys. The only claim to base layer bitcoin that anyone has IS the SHA-256 private key, even if we change encryption methods. You would have to send your funds to a new wallet to take advantage of quantum resistance. We need to accept that if quantum computers live up to their potential, Satoshi's coins will be plundered.

Mentions:#OP#SHA

>we will simply switch to a quantum proof hashing algorithm SHA-256 is already quantum-proof. A quantum computer *might* be able to reduce its entropy by half, but 128 bits of entropy is still plenty. So a quantum computer won't break the mining. The problem is not with the hashing, it's with the ECDSA asymmetric crypto (what you use to sign transactions).

Mentions:#SHA

Bitcoin has two layers of protection against the threat of quantum computing: A) The time window between when a transaction is sent and when it is confirmed on the blockchain is very short, so a quantum computer would need to be extremely quick to exploit this vulnerability before the transaction is confirmed. B) Bitcoin's protocol can be upgraded to use post-quantum cryptography algorithms that are resistant to quantum computing attacks. Antonopoulos believes the Bitcoin community will be able to implement such upgrades as the threat of quantum computing becomes more imminent. Those targeting Bitcoin's cryptography are interested in such technology.Why would they 'destroy it', take value from it and make it public? Anyway, SHA-256 is already quantum proof (NSA says), and BTC is not the easiest or more lucrative target.

Mentions:#SHA#BTC

Your keys are protected by public key cryptography, more specifically secp256k1's elliptic curve, not SHA256, which can be changed in no time to meet the requirements of being Quantum resistant.

Mentions:#SHA

SHA-256 is a hashing algorithm, not an encryption algorithm.

Mentions:#SHA

>I also don’t believe we’re 5-10 years away from this technology. Seems something like 50-100 years. I spent a couple years at NSA as a green-suiter and one thing I thought that was interesting is that when the US loses classified mediums encrypted in SHA-256 to foreign adversaries today, it is assumed that the foreign adversary has immediate and total access to everything on that medium and we start going into asset protection measures. Even though NSA created SHA-256, they have very little trust in its efficacy and it's not considered a valid protection measure for classified material. If I walk out of a SCIF with Top Secret material that's encrypted with SHA-256, it's considered data spillage. Air-gapped networks are basically the only thing they trust.

Mentions:#SHA

Bingo. This is the perfect response to a lazy parroted answer likely given by someone who knows nothing about SHA-256. Banks can upgrade overnight because they are centralized and can also reverse transactions, while Bitcoin has to fight another fork war for years before this gets decided, with no way to reverse the transactions from theft that happened during this interim period. The fact that guy compared cracking SHA-256 to a comet wiping out the earth is just absolutely comical, especially when it’s guaranteed to happen by the end of this decade. You asked a super legitimate question and of course, you’re getting lazy answers that parrot the mainstream view from people who know absolutely nothing about encryption and parrot what they heard from their local crypto trading bro.

Mentions:#SHA

I hate this answer. It’s such a lazy cop out that gets parroted constantly. If quantum computing breaks SHA-256, banks can upgrade to SHA-512 because they’re centralized entities that can make decisions like that. Almost all centralized cybersecurity can upgrade their security pretty easily. There will be some pain, but almost everyone will have upgraded in a matter of weeks. In Bitcoin land, we’d likely have another fork war over how to solve this problem and plenty of proposals as to what the proper encryption tech is. Miners will hate this too since their capital is worthless. I love Bitcoin for all its decentralized properties as censorship resistant money, but let’s not pretend this isn’t a problem and lazily say that the world would end if we could crack SHA-256. I guarantee this happens before the end of the decade and most other entities can overcome it in a way that will be much harder for Bitcoin.

Mentions:#SHA

The other answer is we just switch to a quantum-safe encryption format. It’s also theorized that SHA-256 already is quantum-resistant to some degree

Mentions:#SHA

Okay I don’t want to be rude to you but you are very clearly not a technical person. Bitcoin’s use of hashing and SHA256 does not make its private keys MORE secure. Those hashes serve a completely different purpose.  If you grab a copy Satoshi’s paper here: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf on page 2 paragraph 1 there is a diagram which clearly explains each block contains a digital signature + the public key from the previous owner. (FYI you cannot verify a digital signature WITHOUT exposing the entire public key).  Elliptic Curve asymmetric schemes like secp256k1 are vulnerable to quantum computing. See the quantum computing section here if you want an explanation why:  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptic-curve_cryptography#:~:text=of%20a%20backdoor.-,Quantum%20computing%20attack,on%20a%20hypothetical%20quantum%20computer. Any cryptographic scheme with is a subset of the Abelian Hidden Sungroup problem, like factoring, like discrete log, like elliptic curves can be broken by Quantum computers.  This is not such a big deal. Almost nobody is actually running quantum resistant protocols and quantum resistant protocols are extremely slow. 

Mentions:#SHA

This is misleading. Bitcoin is vulnerable to Quantum computing because it uses elliptic curves to create its public and private keys.  A quantum computer can just retrieve private keys and can steal people’s money and double spend in bitcoin WITHOUT having broken SHA256. Your long monologue about hashing is giving a lot of stupid people on this forum the wrong idea that bitcoin is quantum resistant - it is not, it never was, and there is no plan to make it resistant in the near future. 

Mentions:#SHA

SHA-256 is a hashing scheme. It’s not a public private key scheme. Bitcoin uses elliptic curves for signing transactions and verifying and those fall apart to quantum computing like butter. Any scheme that reduces to Abelian Hidden Subgroup (such as elliptic curves and integer factorization and discrete log) is susceptible. You can read this to find out more: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_subgroup_problem

Mentions:#SHA

Here's how secure SHA-256 is. And currently it would take a quantum computer with over 100m qubits of computing power to break that encryption. IBM is currently the closest with their computer running a whooping 37 qubits. https://youtu.be/S9JGmA5_unY?si=uKhnt8lKrU76ECfF

Mentions:#SHA

The discussion here is quantum breaking private keys, not breaking SHA-256.

Mentions:#SHA

SHA256 is not the "encryption algorithm" used to make public/private keys. Algorithms that make public/private keys are like RSA, or Elliptic Curve variants.

Mentions:#SHA

A lot of people are commenting and not actually answering the question. The encryption algorithm to make public/private keys are SHA 256. This standard has been mathematically proven as equivalent to a 128 bit hash against quantum attacks. This is because quantum processes are inherently better at certain types of computations but not others. A simplistic way to think about this is parallel vs serial tasks. Quantum computing is great at finding a solution amongst a large number of parallel paths to reach an answer. However it's quite poor (or equivalent) at performing serial tasks (I.e. find A as solution to find B then to find C)

Mentions:#SHA

IIRC in the height of the block wars there was someone claiming there was some "turbo boost" in some ASIC miners that get left in for BCH and forbidden in BTC. I don't know how someone can "boost" SHA256, but I thought someone was making the claim. If it's not all BS, then there would be miners that work "better" on BCH than BTC, making moving a BTC miner without the "boost" to BCH a non-starter.

I have used a ledger wallet, and the main things that I don't like about it are that it is: 1. Not open source - My version will be 100% open source for software, firmware, and hardware 2. Expensive - The only cost would be an ISO7816-4 PCSC compliant SmartCard with SHA256 encryption which are like $10 3. Cumbersome to carry around - My wallet and smartphone are something I carry with me at all times anyways, so if I ever need to send crypto, I can do it at anytime anyplace. This is AFAIK the only cold solution to sending crypto anytime/anywhere where you don't need to carry anything separate 4. Only can plug in through USB - Contactless methods like NFC and RFID are so much nicer. Just tap the hardware wallet card to your phone, put your biometrics, and boom done.

Mentions:#SHA
r/BitcoinSee Comment

Your backup very bad it is a 3of3, if you loose one piece you have lost your money - which is very likely in the scale of long-term savings. You can use a passphrase with a suitable place to back it up - that's one you can solve with a bit of thinking. Or you can use SLIP39 (supported by trezor), which splits the 24 word seed into three 24 word pieces that are encrypted. You need any two of the three pieces to recreate the wallet. for PartB 1-5. Use standard methods is best and for anything digital use multiple USB sticks and on the stick itself duplicate the data 3 times (and do a SHA sum of the folder) to help avoid bitrot. For extra safety you can also record the derivation paths. I don't think you are as likely to have problems, there's wallet standards that didn't exist years ago and will likely stay the same.

Mentions:#SHA
r/BitcoinSee Comment

The easiest would be just to use the XPUB if you have it (no derivation paths makes things faster). Otherwise, just try say the first 100 derivation paths once you have the XPRIV / XPUB. You should be able to reuse this for the derivation paths so you avoid the expensive 2048 iterations of SHA512 for each derivation path. The bitcoin Rust libraries support this. I wrote a tool that supports this with pure GPU acceleration, but if you are dealing with 49M that should be easy on a modern CPU. [https://github.com/seed-cat/seedcat](https://github.com/seed-cat/seedcat) In my case I needed to try \~100B combinations so GPU acceleration was necessary.

Mentions:#SHA#GPU#CPU
r/BitcoinSee Comment

No. I don't believe nor see how bitcoin could die without everything else follow thru. Even if SHA256 is broken, bitcoin would be the last on your mind. As long as there's an internet and electricity. Bitcoin will survive.

Mentions:#SHA
r/BitcoinSee Comment

The fact that your comment and question make no sense. Try again with a coherent question. > So to compute sha it would take 119304.6471111111 hashes per second. Like whut? Why are you even bringing in hashes per second into this? OP and Amber\_Sam were not talking about that, nor did they need to. 119304.6471111111 hashes per second means that many SHA's per second (technically double that). If you're trying to say something about 10 minutes of 119304.6471111111 hashes per second, then your math doesn't even work out even closely. So it's totally unclear what you even mean. > On average but that number makes no sense so I'm obviously missing something what is it? What does it mean for a "number to make sense", other than that it's correct when you apply it to the correct calculation?

Mentions:#OP#SHA
r/BitcoinSee Comment

Its worse than that. The Nonce that gets incremented is the last 4 bytes of that header. so you can build an SHA256 hash function that keeps its internal state from the last for iterations and roll back each time you fail. So the hash rate is not how many times you can hash the whole header, but basically the time it takes you to hash 4 bytes and roll back. You only need to hash the whole header once every 4.2B hashes when you run out of nonces

Mentions:#SHA
r/BitcoinSee Comment

Ok ok we're getting somewhere, thanks for sticking with me. > … I don’t think you’re listening, hashing is a one way function so what do you want to circumvent? SO, am I correct in understanding that your position is that an attack (other than brute force) against SHA256 is impossible? Is that what this means?

Mentions:#SO#SHA
r/BitcoinSee Comment

Thanks for that. Now please give me a tiny bit of patience, let's do this step by step: Please explain how that is in any way related to my argument that people who claim that « it is impossible for the NSA to have designed SHA256 in a way that gives the an advantage », are wrong. Just to help smooth the conversation: You'll note how no part of my argument includes the word « brute force ».

Mentions:#SHA
r/BitcoinSee Comment

> The algorithm is public, widely-known, and widely-studied. Would it be currently widely studied if all that needs to be known about it is already known and there was no possibility of finding further flaws in it? Wasn't it already very widely studied when the 2011 attacks were found? How do you measure/determine by how much the likelyhood of finding an attack decreases every year or decade? How do you determine at what value that likelihood started ? > is *extremely* unlikely, How did you determine how unlikely it is ? I'd be very curious to see your math. What probability, between 0 and 1, does "extremely likely" map to? Is that probability 0 ? If it's not, you're essentially agreeing with my position, which has never been anything except « people who claim that the chance of this is zero, are demonstrably wrong ». Listing reasons why something might be more likely than without those reasons, is not the same as saying something is likely. It might or might not be likely that the NSA created SHA256 by starting from the intent of designing it so it gives them an advantage. I do not know if that is the case or not, I just believe it sounds like something that could reasonably be decided at a NSA meeting. I can totally see a team of mathematicians at the NSA being tasked with doing \*\*exactly that\*\*. Whether they decided to do it, and whether what we have now is what they produced, I have \*\*no way\*\* to know how likely that is. And neither do you, which is my point. My point is, it's possible, and we don't know how likely it is, therefore people claiming/expecting it's impossible, or they know how likely it is, are wrong. Here, let me explain (again) to you what I mean by « I do not know how likely this is, but I can show a reason that makes it MORE likely »: « Dual\_EC\_DRBG. » There. Now, I don't know how likely it is that the NSA designed SHA256 in a way that they have an advantage. BUT I know that they have done it before. THE FACT THAT they have done it before, makes it MORE likely (notice how I said « more likely », not « likely ») that this is the case for SHA256. Do you agree with this statement? Let me do it again: « Bullrun leaks ». There again. THE FACT THAT it has been leaked that the NSA DOES THIS, makes it MORE LIKELY that they do this for any specific case/algo. NOT «likely» (though you'll certainly hear some argue that it is... just not me), but «more likely». And that applies to SHA256 as well.

Mentions:#SHA
r/BitcoinSee Comment

I'm gonna say this one more time. The algorithm is public, widely-known, and widely-studied. The idea that *only* the NSA (which itself isn't a monolith, but an ever-evolving group of people who are ostensibly goal-aligned, but who certainly all have differing views/morals/ultimate loyalties) knows "this one weird trick" which weakens/breaks SHA-256 is *extremely* unlikely, and grows even more unlikely with each passing day.

Mentions:#SHA
r/BitcoinSee Comment

> What idea? Wait, so the issue all this time has been that you can't read? > You have no evidence of any backdoor to SHA-256, I have never at any point claimed to have evidence of such a backdoor, that's not in any way even close to the argument I'm making. [https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman](https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman) > You only have a conspiracy theory You clearly do not understand what a conspiracy theory is. What is the conspiracy I am presenting here? That a security agency designing a security algo with worldwide usage would have considered designing it in a way that gives them an advantage? ie essentially \*\*doing exactly their stated job\*\* ?? That's like saying it's a conspiracy theory to claim that plumbers do plumbing... > You only have a conspiracy theory Even if it was a conspiracy theory (it's not really, but sure. it's a theory of some kind for sure), you saying that is still not demonstrating it's wrong. > to anyone with an IQ > 100, is boring. I'm not sure when was the last time I've talked to somebody with the arrogance of claiming they speak for half the population...

Mentions:#SHA
r/BitcoinSee Comment

What idea? You have no evidence of any backdoor to SHA-256, nor any interesting lead(s) to pursue. You only have a conspiracy theory which, to anyone with an IQ > 100, is boring.

Mentions:#SHA
r/BitcoinSee Comment

Okay, then don't buy Bitcoin because you're afraid of a backdoor to SHA-256 that only the NSA knows about.

Mentions:#SHA
r/BitcoinSee Comment

> If it wasn't, the NSA wouldn't be able stop it from being broken and we would already know by now. I don't get the logic, care to explain? If SHA256 was so well understood that it's impossible to find a new attack against it, nobody would be currently researching the security of SHA256... that's what we'd expect to see in the research, right? Let me explain my logic by the way: Think of the 2011 attack against SHA256. Before 2011, it wasn't publicly known. After 2011, it was publicly known. Now imagine some other attack that's "larger" in scope, that would let one break SHA with like a month of current supercalculator processing or something. And imagine it'll get discovered in 2035. That's in the realm of possibilities correct? So, currently we don't know about that attack. After 2035 we will know about that attack. What if the NSA \*currently\* knows about that attack, but doesn't make that public for reasons I trust are so obvious I don't need to explain. We wouldn't know, right? And there'd be an attack still. So, attack, that we don't know about. Possible then. Correct? And from there, it really doesn't take a big leap to notice that SHA256 wasn't designed by Microsoft. Or by Cambridge. Or by some random Norwegian researcher in his study. It was designed by, of all organizations, the NSA ... Isn't that \*\*the tiniest bit\*\* suspicious? Woudn't you raise an eyebrow if it was coming from the GRU ? I'm sure the NSA would raise an eyebrow in that case... absolutely certain. If SHA256 was so well understood it's perfectly known to be safe, isn't it weird how the US' enemies put considerable ressources into designing and implementing their own alternative systems? > You are just conspiracy-theorizing because you can't conceive of a world where all-powerful government agencies that don't always "win" don't exist. Yep, note, that's not what's happening here. Govenment agencies lose all the time. 9/11 for one, and general human incompetence more generally, they fail constantly. That's not what this is about. It's about understanding what's possible, and what the motivations (and even duties) of the various parties are.

Mentions:#SHA
r/BitcoinSee Comment

SHA256 is secure today. If it wasn't, the NSA wouldn't be able stop it from being broken and we would already know by now.

Mentions:#SHA
r/BitcoinSee Comment

It's always shocking to me how peoplethank/talk about those things as if they were sure things (be it gold people, bitcoin people, etc). Massive profits almost always come with massive risks. Bitcoin might be a case of massive profits coming with half-massive risks, and gold might be a case of medium benefits coming with medium risks, but the risk's still there. Take gold: it (probably) won't happen overnight, but new technology/industrial development can have massive effects on the gold economy/value, in both direction: maybe next year we discover some superconductive allow that's partially made with gold, revolutionizes the energy industry, and decuples the demand for gold (and therefore value explodes). But it also works the other way: maybe next year we discover some new way of mining gold ( a more efficient way of mining sea-floor nodules, some space-mining technique that's realizable at-scale in the coming decade, some new way of extracting it from the Earth's crust that doesn't require mining/processing ore, etc, the possibilities are endless ), and if that happens, the value would plummet. Human history is FULL of discoveries like this, especially these past two centurise, ESPECIALLY these past few decades, and it's accelerating/exploding. Gold is \*likely\* a safe and stable investment. But we CAN NOT know how safe. If somebody pretends they know, they are bullshitting. You do not know what will be discovered tomorrow, you do not know how society and industry will evolve. Maybe it'll become more valuable than platinum, maybe it'll become as common as copper... You don't know. Same is (in different ways) true with Bitcoin: It \*might\* keep growing in explosive ways the way it has so far. It might also plateau. Or something might appear that has such massively improved utility, it "steals away" most of the crypto market growth/adoption, leaving Bitcoin just a historical curiosity with a slow increase in value. OR it might even completely collapse: it's based on cryptography, and cryptography is famous for algos/techniques some day completely collapsing because of some weird mathematical trick nobody had figured out until then. Look up the history of cryptography. Bitcoin is based on SHA256, and SHA256 was created by NSA, which provided the primes for it. It's a bit naive to think the reason they created it and promoted it and ensured it's widely adopted, isn't that they have \*some\* way to circumvent it. I don't know if it's certain, but it sure seems likely. [https://eprint.iacr.org/2011/286.pdf](https://eprint.iacr.org/2011/286.pdf) Now the good thing for Bitcoin is, the NSA likely doesn't care about breaking Bitcoin, because they want SHA256 to keep the appearance of security. But \*\*somebody else\*\* might figure out what they did, and the day that happens, our Bitcoins are completely worthless. Even if the network switches, massive amounts of value would be lost. Even if I'm wrong about this specifically, it's still not safe. It's still possible some flaw will come along. It's possible it's impossible, it's possible it's likely. You just don't know. For both gold and bitcoin, you DO NOT KNOW what will happen. That makes them dangerous assets. Which might be worth it considering the profits we've made so far. But people shouldn't operate under the impression this is risk-free, as I hear a lot of people do operate...

Mentions:#SHA
r/BitcoinSee Comment

> this is a public key. Just to clarify, that's not a public key. That's an address which is a hash of a public key. To be specific it's a [RIPEMD160](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/RIPEMD-160) hash of the [SHA256](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/SHA-256) hash of the public key. For anyone curious on how the address is generated you can [read this wiki](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Technical_background_of_version_1_Bitcoin_addresses#How_to_create_Bitcoin_Address). It's an important distinction for when quantum computing (QC) becomes more relevant because QC can potentially reveal private keys from their public keys. QC doesn't pose as much of a threat to hashing.

Mentions:#SHA
r/BitcoinSee Comment

> Am I retarded for thinking this? It's not called retarded, it's called uneducated, ignorant. > Like companies on a stock market but instead traded on blockchain The main problem of blockchain is that it does not scale. Therefore, if you are saying that "with many use cases that shouldn't be used on the btc blockchain to avoid bloat" you kind of acknowledge that scaling problem, but at the same time you try to solve it with more blockchains. You can't scale blockchain with having more blockchains. If you find some value in some security tokenization something or whatever, you should do it offchain. Unsurprisingly, you can do such offchain things off-bitcoin-chain via e.g. RGB or Taro. However, blockchain is not the genius invention in Bitcoin. Blockchain is just a data structure, that has been known before Bitcoin, just like the SHA256 hashing algorithm has been known before Bitcoin, just like ECDSA has been known before Bitcoin, just like Proof of Work has been known before Bitcoin. The genius invention of Bitcoin is how all these previously known pieces were put together and then the difficulty adjustment PoW.

Mentions:#SHA
r/BitcoinSee Comment

I explained in detail the reasons why that won't work in another comment, but I thought I'd also write down exactly how the pool/mining process works, on top of that: 1. **Getting Set Up:** When you join a mining pool, you're given a block template by the pool's server. It's got what you need to start mining - minus the full block details. It's like getting the outline of a puzzle without all the pieces, letting you jump straight into cracking the code without knowing every transaction detail. 2. **The Mining Mission:** Your main goal? Find a nonce, a one-of-a-kind number that, when you mash it together with the block data and run it through a crypto hash function (I think for Bitcoin that's SHA256), gives you a hash that fits the network's difficulty level, like starting with a string of zeros. 3. **Nonce Hunting:** This is where you and your computer flex your muscles, trying out nonce after nonce with the block data. It's a high-stakes, number-crunching marathon to find that perfect nonce that leads to the right hash. 4. **Proof of Work:** Hit the nonce jackpot? You send your findings - the nonce and its matching hash - back to the pool. This is your proof that you've done the legwork. 5. **Verification Time:** The pool takes your submitted nonce and partial block data, does the math to get the hash, and checks if it passes the difficulty check. This step confirms you've actually found a legit nonce. 6. **No Shortcuts Here:** Trying to game the system with random nonces or hashes won't work. The pool's check-up process catches any fake attempts since they won't match up with genuine mining efforts. 7. **Coinbase Transaction:** If your work checks out and the block gets mined, the block reward first goes to the pool's address through a coinbase transaction. It's a safeguard that ensures miners can't redirect the reward to themselves. Messing with this transaction would make the block invalid from the pool's perspective. 8. **Splitting the Spoils:** Finally, the pool divvies up the block reward among miners based on the computational work everyone contributed. The share each miner gets is based on the pool's own rules and agreements. That's the gist of it. Mining isn't just about having powerful hardware; it's about cooperation, precision, and a bit of luck in finding that golden nonce.

Mentions:#SHA

It's just FUD. There are still many years before quantum computing gets to that point, and we will have time to update the code. Not an expert, but I seriously doubt it will be able to crack 512-bit keys. Either way, SHA256 is embedded in the entire internet and legacy financial system, and if it can't be protected then BTC will be the least of your concerns.

Mentions:#FUD#SHA#BTC
Reddit user placeholder image