SHA

semvantuijn

Eventually, when quantum computers will become powerful enough to break SHA-256 encryption, all lost Bitcoin private keys will be "recovered" if they haven't been upgraded to a quantum proof encryption algorithm (because the owners who lost the Bitcoin can't access it). So deflation due to lost private keys are unlikely to cause excessive deflation to the point that a Satoshi is too big a base unit. Also, on the Lightning Network you can make transactions of amounts way smaller than a Satoshi (1/100 or 1/1000 of a Satoshi I believe). Hope this answers your question

slimdizzy

Breaking SHA 256 will cause bigger problems than just breaking Bitcoin. Not worried.

Darkest_Visions

Can you actually say that with quantum computers able to break SHA 256 ?

Mantis-Prawn

When there is more computer power we can also encrypt harder. So by then will be stepping over to SHA1024 or something. Other are worried that quantum computing will help the people learn how to genetically manipulate iron into gold.  There is always something to worry about. There is also always a solution or a substitute.

Capable_Swordfish_30

The danger to Bitcoin from quantum computers is exaggerated. First, because it is not even clear whether it is possible to scale them to the number of qubits required to make them a threat. Second, because they would break digital signatures but not the SHA256 hash, meaning funds in all non-reused addresses would remain secure. Third, because there will be ample time to implement post-quantum signatures, just as Schnorr was introduced. Bitcoin faces other real challenges, not quantum computing.

Amphibious333

Quantum computers are a Silicon Valley scam running for decades. It's an investor cash-grab scam. Also, if SHA-256 is no longer useful at some point, there is nothing to prevent the Bitcoin developers from implementing a more complex and advanced encryption algorithm. Quantum computers are more of a sci-fi thing rather than something real. They are just an overhyped prototype technology meant to attract investors's money. Watch this video debunk: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xcbZJDJlptk&pp=ygUWUXVhbnR1bSBjb21wdXRlcnMgc2NhbQ%3D%3D

OverallHearing5

All the crypto fellating from bitcoin influencers has made me sick. I hope someone unleashes a high powered quantum computer on the SHA-256 and breaks this trash down now.

jumpinfunkjunk

SHA256 encryption allows for generation of wallets that is more than the estimated atoms in the universe. It's the law of large numbers protecting you.

nickoaverdnac

This problem is already being worked on. SHA256 isnt limited to bitcoin

Fun_Acanthisitta_206

Encrypted file? No way the broke the encryption, unless you used SHA1 or something broken like that.

Huge_Monero_Shill

Wildly irrelevant. Quantum computing risks apply to everything online. Breaking SHA256 also means every bank server is accessible.

Aconyminomicon

If we are talking about using the network to send money, then yeah. I will buy my "shitcoin" named HBAR and near instant speed, a 3-5 seconds time to finality with predictable fees equating to roughly a fraction of a cent. I won't even touch on the smart contract capability, aka tokenisation, which is not a thing with PoW. I use Hedera because it's a unique hashgraph mechanism, not clunky old blockchain tech from a paper written 15 years ago. I also use it because it is a quantum proof network that is way more encrypted than Bitcoin's SHA-256. [https://hedera.com/blog/post-quantum-crypto](https://hedera.com/blog/post-quantum-crypto) If you can tell me why any Bitcoin network or fork is better, I am all ears.

CasualRedditObserver

It's not even a very complex "coin toss". The process is simply: 1. Pick a random 32 bit (4 byte) number. 2. Using a pretty simple computation, combine that 4-byte random number with the other 76 bytes of a valid block header. 3. The result of that computation will always be a 256 bit (32 byte) number. 4. Compare that 32 byte result to the current difficulty target number. 5. If the result of your computation is less than the target, you get to broadcast the block which pays you 3.125 BTC plus transaction fees of all transactions in the block. 6 if the result of your computation is NOT less than the target, go back to step 1 and try again. (The calculation in step 2 is called SHA256. There are videos and blogs that show how to do it by hand with pencil on paper. It isn't difficult, but it has a lot of steps and one mistake results an a completely invalid result. A computer, or ASIC, can do it VERY fast. The best ASICs at the moment can do about 235,000,000,000,000 of them every second. The average human can probably calculate one SHA256 result by hand in one to three weeks).

Amphibious333

I'm not saying it's aliens... but it's aliens. They probably have quantum computers and managed to break the SHA-256, and then gained access to Satoshi's wallet.

Tiny-Design-9885

You’re look for SHA-256. Look it up

mixologyst

Quantum computing doesn’t work against SHA256, don’t spew bullshit.

East-Cricket6421

Well we know what quantum affords us (speed) so there are ways to design network interactions where speed alone doesn't allow you to hijack the system. I've seen a few models for cryptographic handshakes that are rate limited, so if you don't know, simply guessing faster isn't going to get you to the goal. Double SHA-256 has some of those qualities embedded into it but we can of course improve on it. We just won't be able to get the BTC network there, it will have to be an entirely new project which of course involves building community, raising capital, etc. Once the actual need arrives though, there will be options.

East-Cricket6421

Double SHA 256 is reportedly more quantum resistant than people realize. There are already chains that were designed entirely to deal with quantum computation but they aren't in fashion at the moment. Nothing with utility is because everyone is chasing meme coins and presidential pump and dump schemes.

JeremyLinForever

I absolutely believe Saylor will do this, and he has every incentive to. By stating this and burning his keys, it basically ensures that people will still try and crack SHA256 algo, but it also ensures that people will do everything they can to protect the network because they know their holdings of BTC will increase greatly afterwards. It’s essentially game theory at its finest, yet again.

mynamewastaken69420

Unless someone can break SHA- 256 (which is used buy things other than crypto) no one can crack bitcoin. Bitcoin is open source, so regardless if you created it, you’re on an equal footing with the rest of us.

colinallbets

Reading their FAQ [https://btcpuzzle.info/faq#what-should-i-pay-attention-to-when-transferring-the-reward](https://btcpuzzle.info/faq#what-should-i-pay-attention-to-when-transferring-the-reward), We're both partially right: \* The public and private keys referenced are SHA-256 / actual BTC pub/private keys. It would normally be infeasible to impute the private key from public key. \* HOWEVER, the nature of this game is that it defines a relatively narrow range of possible private keys. AND, certain public keys are released after some amount of proof of work is demonstrated (or so I can glean, it's honestly quite confusing). So, *if* someone solves a puzzle, and *if* that person begins the process of transferring the bitcoin to another wallet (broadcasting the publicly known, UTXO-laden address to the mempool), AND *if* that person with the private key had left RBF turned on.. THEN, someone could feasibly use the public key, *the known private key range*, AND one of the known methods of deriving (brute force guessing) the private key using a public key, to re-discover the private key, quickly. *If* they can re-discover that private key in a short period of time (i.e., while the transaction is still in the mempool), they could broadcast a new transaction with a higher fee (re: RBF) and send it to a wallet they control\*. \*I actually didn't know one could change destination addresses with RBF, but maybe someone else can elaborate on that part of it..

iCryptToo

It was a soft fork so the ECDSCA wallets are backwards compatible if you move them over to an SHA address. I’ve heard experts talking about a possible soft fork into a Quantum resistant hash…if it’s a soft fork it’ll be no biggie just like the Taproot fork was…You’re definitely right about QCs being able to break SHA-256 at some point but we might be like 50 years away from that…

DangerHighVoltage111

You are right, I was not aware that Schnorr uses SHA-256. seems kinda weird to set it all on one horse. If it breaks everything breaks. It is also not QC resistant. Anyway. Let's assume Taproot is safe for the moment. As far as every maxi claims BTC is backwards compatible. So I assume most addresses are still ECDSCA. Segwit addresses took a long ass time to gain ANY traction at all. I assume you have no such statistic? Anyway if ( in the unlikely case as we established) BTCs hash crypto functions are broken it is toast in many ways one of them being: Being unable to move coins to safe addresses in time.

iCryptToo

It’s no longer done with EDSCA, it’s done with SHA-256 ever since the Taproot fork. Breaking SHA-256 would be a historic moment. We’d see the spoofing attacks like I was referring to before that as it would take less Q-Bits. We’d see other forms of cryptography protocols getting broken before SHA-256.

Rent_South

This FUD is ridiculous. If SHA-256 gets broken, the world will have much much larger issues than bitcoin. At least bitcoin can be upgraded to be QC resistant. Banks, military infrastructure etc ? would not be able to react as quickly. Also we don't even know if it will EVER be feasible in practice.

longonbtc

It's just you. You can't "capture the computing power" of bitcoin mining. Bitcoin miners are just solving SHA-256 hashes.

Mental-Health-Crisis

Dumb and lazy post. Could be anything computer related - or worse Doge coin which also uses SHA256 in mining. And since OP doesn't even know it's clearly in Austria/Vienna he probably lifted the image from somewhere.

freakythrowaway79

From my understand & research that is correct. Even between quantum computing & Ai technologies. Technically It would be "illegal" to hack or steal them. From my understanding even the most advanced technology won't be able to hack due to the hashing sequence. 🤔 The mathamatics involved is unthinkable. The blockchain has I'm not sure how accurate Chat GPT is but ask it yourself. There's at least low-level information available to learn about it. Estimating when SHA-256 might be broken by AI and quantum computers depends on the progress of both fields, especially quantum computing. Here’s an analysis based on current knowledge: 1. Classical Computing and AI Threats AI, even with advanced machine learning models, cannot directly break SHA-256 because it’s based on complex mathematical properties like the avalanche effect (small input changes cause large hash changes). However, AI could help: Identify patterns in hash generation or network vulnerabilities. Optimize the mining process to make it more efficient (but not to break the hashing itself). Therefore, AI alone is unlikely to break SHA-256 anytime soon, if ever. --- 2. Quantum Computing Threats Quantum computers pose a more serious threat because of their ability to solve certain mathematical problems exponentially faster than classical computers: Shor’s Algorithm Shor’s algorithm can theoretically break RSA and ECC encryption by factoring large numbers and solving discrete logarithms efficiently. However, SHA-256 is based on a one-way hashing function (not factoring or discrete logs), so Shor's algorithm cannot directly break SHA-256. Grover’s Algorithm Grover’s algorithm allows quantum computers to search an unsorted database (or invert a hash) in √N time instead of N time. For SHA-256, Grover’s algorithm could reduce the effective security from 256 bits to 128 bits — which is still very strong (AES-128 is considered secure against classical attacks). --- 3. Timeline Estimate Current quantum computers (like those from Google and IBM) have only reached about 1,000 qubits — far below the estimated millions of error-corrected qubits needed to threaten SHA-256 using Grover’s algorithm. Estimates vary, but experts predict that: It could take 15 to 30 years to develop a quantum computer capable of running Grover’s algorithm at a scale that could weaken SHA-256. It may take even longer (if ever) to reduce security to a practically exploitable level, considering the need for fault-tolerant qubits. --- 4. Post-Quantum Cryptography To prepare for this, researchers are working on post-quantum cryptography (PQC), which includes hash-based cryptography that quantum computers are unlikely to break. SHA-256 itself is not currently under immediate threat, but blockchain systems could eventually upgrade to quantum-resistant hashing algorithms (like SHA-3 or lattice-based methods). --- 👉 Conclusion AI is unlikely to break SHA-256 directly. Quantum computers using Grover’s algorithm might weaken SHA-256 to 128-bit security, but this would require millions of qubits and may take 15–30 years (or longer) to become practical. Blockchain systems will likely adopt quantum-resistant algorithms before quantum computing reaches this level.

Minimum_Pear_3195

Not only SHA 256, but a W SHA 256, a W one.

lannistersstark

> Then go read a book about bitcoin SHA-256 is a basic compsci thing, and not related to bitcoin exclusively at all lol. You're just being a big dummy.

Jimathay

I don't mind people in this thread not appreciating that it's an open standard that most of the underlying infrastructure of the whole Internet uses. But honestly find it odd the amount of people willing to argue that any mention of the SHA-256 protocol simply MUST mean bitcoin, and are offended that other applications use it, and have been using it way before Bitcoin.

Jimathay

One could write a similar paragraph for the myriad of other applications the protocol is used for too. >I'd say no other computer application relies so heavily on sha256 assumptions. I'd argue the most common use is in SSL certs, which essentially every website on the planet has. Linux servers too use SHA-256 for SSH tunnelling as well as password hashing. And bear in mind that over half the Internet runs on Linux servers, it's pretty well embedded in the backbone of the entire Internet. Blockchain is just one use.

Jimathay

SHA-256 is used in a myriad of computing applications. Not saying this plate isn't referring to Bitcoin. But it's the equivilant of seeing "the reds" on a plate and assuming it's related to your specific sports team.

AmazingSane

SHA256 is a hashing algorithm

SmoothGoing

Mining doesn't mine coins, it adds transactions to the blockchain in a competitive manner with a heavy cost as a deterrent from attempting any fraud. There are no puzzles. Double SHA256 is a straightforward manipulation of data bits. You can get full spec online. Nodes are irrelevant here because nodes don't mine, it's miners that mine. QC is a thread in itself which you can peruse by using the search function -->

pop-1988

> How do 12 seed phrase work They start as a big random number, 128 bits long. Feed the 128 bits into SHA256. Use the first 4 bits of the SHA256 hash as a checksum. Append the checksum to the 128 bits. Split the 132 bits into 12 chunks of 11 bits. Use each 11-bit chunk as an integer - 2^11 is 2048, an 11-bit integer has a value from 0-2047. The word list has 2048 carefully selected words https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0039/english.txt Use the integer as an index into the word list - 0 is *abandon* ... 2047 is *zoo* Now the big random number has been transformed into 12 words Show the 12 words to the user. The user must write the words on paper and store the paper securely Hash the 12 words 2048 times using SHA512. Send the 512-bit hash to BIP42 to make a tree of keychains > couldn’t someone theoretically just run a computer that guesses 12 word phrases and then steal peoples money all day 2^128 is a very large number, beyond your imagination Also, guessing words is too slow. It's faster to guess all the keys, without all that word-lookup overhead There is a project to guess all keys. It has been running for many years. It has made only tiny progress https://privatekeys.pw/puzzles/bitcoin-puzzle-tx

lovemyhawks

“Cracking” bitcoin implies breaking SHA256. If that occurs, there are far bigger targets than bitcoin’s market cap

uncapchad

Only coins using SHA-256 hashing algorithm. LTC does not use SHA-256. Here is a list of SHA-256 [https://coinguides.org/sha-256-algorithm-coins/](https://coinguides.org/sha-256-algorithm-coins/)

2LostFlamingos

You’ve gone from “millions” to extremely unlikely to have even 2. Bro, from your own source: For scenario 2 to happen, a collision of two of Bitcoin’s hash functions (RIPEMD-160 and SHA-256) would need to happen. As far as we know, neither RIPEMD-160 nor SHA-256 is known to have any vulnerability to hash collision attacks, making the random generation of 2 identical keys very unlikely.

ThinNeighborhood2276

SHA-256 is a cryptographic hash function that takes an input and produces a fixed 256-bit output, ensuring data integrity and security in Bitcoin transactions.

senfmeister

Quantum computers can brute force SHA-256 in O(√N) rather than O(N). That's faster, but it's still a huge search space. 

mimbled

Brute force attack: You would need to: * Generate a private key (a 256-bit number) * Derive its public key using elliptic curve multiplication * Transform that public key through SHA-256 and RIPEMD-160 hashing * Encode it properly to get the address * Check if it matches the target address * Repeat until you find a match The scale of the challenge: * The private key space is 2^256 (approximately 10^77) possibilities * For comparison, the number of atoms in the observable universe is estimated at 10^80 * If you could check 1 trillion (10^12) keys per second, it would still take approximately 10^65 seconds Quantum computing threat: * Shor's algorithm on a sufficiently powerful quantum computer could potentially solve this in reasonable time * However, such quantum computers don't exist yet and would require thousands of error-corrected qubits

FuelZestyclose3541

Jesus was sent to give us Bitcoin but he dialed in the time machine wrong and there was no way for the world to understand SHA-256 and ECDSA, so Satoshi had to be the one who gifted it to us

RANEDJ

SHA 2

DrSpeckles

May be, if they can crack the encryption, which is no more likely than cracking bitcoin , or any random wallet, itself. From their website > LastPass uses AES-256 data encryption plus PBKDF2 hashing with SHA-256 salting. Not sure how that compares to BTC but I think it’s up there.

FranciscoCastroo

I think the same way, I think there is going to be a point where is no longer viable. Talking about code, doge coin the meme was created out of BTC’s code back then and I believe the creators improved it with some upgrades that BTC needed, if it is about code, there are “better” coins out there, the algorithm that btc is based, the SHA-2 (I think it means secure hash algorithm) comes from the NSA, I don’t quite remember the year but there was an article explaining how BTC’s code was based of SHA-2 who was created by a mathematician under the NSA, also satoshi nakamoto loosely means central intelligence, some say CIA, anyway this new money was created on an economic crisis and I don’t want to get super technical in the cycle of money, but there is a cycle where the money goes from gold based to paper to then the country in power falls and then another country replaces it as a world power (ehmmmm Us and china, like England, us, France, all the way back from rome) and regularly they take about 70 years each, it’s coincidental that the BTC came at the time where paper money for the U.S. is about to finishes its cycle. In my opinion BTC will be used for a “store of value lot at least that’s the last big use it is running around for this coin, but We needed someone to trust for then to build over it, get more coins to be real world assets and change the economic point of view, upgrade the network of money that now is being runner by banks. I believe Mr Dan pena said that if people new who satoshi nakamoto is, they will all sell BTC at the same time and the price would go to 0, IMO this is a bit extreme, but he has a point where the value of BTC is attached to the name of the inventor, taking into consideration that the creator has most of the btc. Anyway this was a great post and it’s wiiiiiiiild that they banned you for pointing out this who I think is a fair and valid POV.

ThinNeighborhood2276

Check out projects like Wasabi Wallet and Samourai Wallet for enhanced privacy features on Bitcoin. For password cryptography using SHA-256, you might want to look into Bitcoin's BIP 39 for mnemonic seed phrases, which uses SHA-256 for generating secure keys.

Born_Acanthisitta395

Alright, let’s talk about Bitcoin and its potential quantum doomsday scenario—but with a bit of perspective. Right now, Bitcoin is like a medieval castle, fortified with cryptographic walls so strong that even the most advanced classical computers would need longer than the age of the universe to break in. But enter quantum computing, the rebellious new kid on the block, with a sledgehammer made of Shor’s Algorithm and an attitude that says, “Rules? What rules?” What’s the Big Quantum Scare? Bitcoin’s security relies heavily on elliptic curve cryptography (ECC)—which is fantastic against traditional computers but about as useful as a wet paper bag against a large-scale quantum computer running Shor’s Algorithm. This means: 1. Public Keys Become Sitting Ducks – Right now, your Bitcoin is safe because your private key is derived from your public key in a way that makes it mathematically impossible (for classical computers) to reverse-engineer. Quantum computers, however, could do this in minutes or hours—turning your public key into an open invitation for thieves. 2. The “Steal-it-if-it’s-not-moved” Problem – Bitcoin transactions expose public keys during a transaction. If a quantum attacker sees an unmoved Bitcoin sitting in a wallet with a known public key, they could extract the private key and take the funds before you do. It’s a classic game of “who types faster?”—except your opponent is an AI-enhanced, quantum-fueled speed demon. 3. 51% Attack on Quantum Steroids – If a sufficiently powerful quantum computer emerges, it could theoretically break Bitcoin’s mining algorithm (which uses SHA-256 hashing) more efficiently than classical miners. This could lead to quantum dominance in mining, allowing one entity to outpace the network and potentially manipulate transactions or double-spend. So, Are We All Doomed? Not really. Here’s the good news: 1. Quantum Computers Aren’t There Yet – The largest functional quantum computers today have a few hundred qubits and are mostly busy simulating molecules, optimizing logistics, and confusing undergrads. To break Bitcoin, you’d need a fault-tolerant quantum computer with millions of qubits, and we’re not even close. Experts estimate this could take 10-20 years at minimum—and that’s assuming breakthroughs that no one has figured out yet. 2. Post-Quantum Cryptography is Already a Thing – Smart people (the kind who do math for fun) are developing quantum-resistant cryptographic algorithms. Bitcoin developers are actively researching ways to upgrade the network to use post-quantum cryptography before quantum computers pose a real threat. 3. You Can Protect Your Own Bitcoin – If you’re worried, don’t reuse addresses. Use wallets that generate a fresh address for every transaction so that your public key never sits exposed for long. 4. Soft Forks and Upgrades – If quantum computing gets close to being a real problem, Bitcoin can implement a network-wide soft fork to switch to post-quantum cryptographic algorithms like lattice-based cryptography. The Bitcoin network has survived major upgrades before; this would just be a big one. The Bottom Line Right now, Bitcoin is safe, and quantum computers are more of a James Bond villain concept than an immediate apocalypse. The real risk isn’t waking up tomorrow to find Bitcoin wallets empty—it’s being too slow to adapt once quantum computing actually reaches a breaking point. Fortunately, Bitcoin’s decentralized development community is already preparing, so when the quantum revolution comes, it’s more likely to be a tech upgrade rather than a catastrophic event. Now, if someone does manage to build a million-qubit quantum computer tomorrow, well… we’ll have bigger problems than just Bitcoin.

3337jess

Volatility is part of Bitcoin’s journey, but the bigger picture is important. Right now, we’re adding $1 trillion to the national debt every 100 days, and since 2000, the debt has grown from $5.7 trillion to over $36 trillion, highlighting growing financial instability. Bitcoin’s fundamentals are stronger than ever, though. The Bitcoin ETFs signal commercial adoption, and with the potential for a Bitcoin reserve, federal adoption is becoming more plausible. Bitcoin’s 4-year halving cycle ensures deflation and a reduction in supply, adding upward pressure on price. Bitcoin’s hashrate is essentially the “strength” of the network. Think of it like the locks on a door that keep bad actors out. When more miners join the network, it’s like adding more high-quality locks. Since Bitcoin’s start, the hashrate has gone from around 5 terahashes per second in 2010 to over 350 exahashes per second today. Trying to attack the network would not only be costly, it would be suicidal—the energy and computing power needed would far exceed Bitcoin’s entire market value, making it practically impossible for anyone to take control. Bitcoin’s cryptography, including elliptical curve signatures and SHA-256, is highly resistant to tampering, and quantum computing, despite the FUD, would require energy costs that far exceed Bitcoin’s entire market cap to break. The trends driving Bitcoin are only going to increase, not fade away. This isn’t a passing phase, it’s an irreversible shift toward digital assets and decentralized systems. Understanding this is power—it’s armor against the volatility that may come. The more you know, the better equipped you are to navigate through uncertainty and embrace the long-term potential of Bitcoin.

Rent_South

Quantum computing is nowhere near breaking SHA-256, and experts agree it is still decades away, if it is even possible at all. And if quantum computers ever did reach that level, Bitcoin would be the least of your problems. Every financial institution, military system, and secure database in the world relies on cryptographic security. If SHA-256 gets broken, we are talking about a global infrastructure crisis, not just some BTC vulnerability. Bitcoin would likely be one of the first systems to adapt, since the network can upgrade if needed. Meanwhile, banks and governments would be scrambling to keep their entire systems from collapsing.

rgnet1

That makes no sense. Why satoshi coins vs any others if it was actually possible to brute force? Regardless, if SHA256 is ever compromised, we’ll know it. It secures ALL web traffic, so it will immediately shutdown all internet commerce and communication as well. It’s virtually impossible that when quantum computing is actually reliable that there won’t simultaneously be quantum resistant encryption algorithms. It is also highly likely that some (probably significant) percentage of people with old and/or forgotten keys will have those wallets cleaned out. But that is still meaningless to the overall fixed supply.

oak1337

>mathematically, spoiler there is know universally 'Best'. There is though. All DLT measure Consensus Overhead. With two hashed timestamps, Hedera gets consensus for free. It's also proven aBFT, shards aBFT, and is SHA384 AES256. Best security, infinite scalability, and is Decentralized. 1. 39 council members, equal share/power, is decentralized governance. That's just a fact. Google is the same one vote as IIT Madras (University). All nodes also have **equal node consensus power**, so when permissionless nodes happen, your node is equal to Google's node. Other networks (ALGO for example) have thousands of nodes, but only a handful do all the work, which are controlled by the central entity. Very cool you can spin up your own node, but it does nothing and doesn't really contribute to consensus. Useless. Hedera will be permissionless in the future, and if that's your biggest beef, I say just give it time, it's coming. >This raises concerns about counterparty risk—could the council manipulate the network or token economics to favor corporate interests over individual users? No, and their incentives are aligned regardless. >2. HBAR’s demand isn’t directly driven by transaction volume False. Yes it is. HBAR is needed to perform transactions on the network. Every txn requires HBAR. More txns = more HBAR demand. >The council’s control over HBAR releases (e.g., only 41.9 billion in circulation as of now) can suppress price volatility, which some see as price manipulation rather than organic growth. This is not how coin releases work. They allocate coins from Treasury into their grant foundations like HBAR Foundation and The Hashgraph Association, who's jobs are to grant HBAR away. "Coin releases" do not just hit the open market. They go to builders, and take years and years to be spent/sold. There's no manipulation there. Yes it's also a store of value if there's adoption on this high throughput network. 3. Hashgraph isn't patented. It was when it was first created, but not anymore. It was open sourced with an Apache 2.0 license and is currently the ONLY chain that has donated it's codebase to the Linux Foundation. It's the most open sourced chain in existence. 4. Win Enterprise, win the game. It's been 15+years since BTC was first invented. Less than 7% of the world has touched crypto. Time to onboard the other 93% of people, and it ain't gonna be by the original crypto ethos. It's gonna be when people use crypto without knowing it by interacting with their favorite brands, who push Web3 apps, etc to them. 5. LOL are you serious? It's the most regulatory compliant chain. Regulations will help HBAR most. HBAR ETF is incoming. Enterprises need regulation to launch. And there are no supply dumps. That's patently false, and I explained before how coin releases work. HBAR will be the Trust Layer of the Internet of Value. It will be the most widely used crypto and will take over the world. Funny, sounds like you're gonna miss the ride on some bad info. Haha good luck 👍

Pure_Ad_9865

The Hedera Hashgraph consensus algorithm is the mathematical endgame of distributed ledger technology. Unlike blockchains, uses compact hashes instead of large raw data in a graph structure (DAG) to achieve efficient, decentralized consensus. Information spreads through the network with virus-like efficiency, making Hedera (HBAR): * **aBFT-secure** (offering the highest level of security) * **Leaderless with no MEV** (preventing transaction manipulation) * **SHA-384 post-quantum resistant** (future-proof cryptographic security) * **Provable fair ordering** (eliminating miner/validator manipulation) * **Infinitely scalable** without L2s or forks (100,000+ TPS per shard) * **Sub-3-second finality** (near-instant transactions) * **Carbon-negative** (the greenest DLT) * **Low, fixed fees pegged to USD** (\~$0.0001 per transaction) * **Open-source codebase with a vendor-neutral governance model under the Linux Foundation** (Project Hiero) On a technical level, Hedera isn’t just more advanced than other DLTs—it defines the future of decentralized technology and the post-quantum era. For example, it is 3300x more energy-efficient than Ethereum. But, to take Hedera to the next level, we need: * **More aggressive marketing towards retail adoption** * **Community nodes for increased decentralization** Leemon Baird (inventor of Hedera) and Charles Hoskinson have been spending time together recently, proving there’s no need for hate or tribalism. Hedera and Cardano are building the future—together. ❤️

the_real_RZT

Sign nothing unless it’s me, can the do a man in the middle on Swift or SHA transfers?

Foreign-Fox3574

No, Jack Dorsey got involved with BTC after 2020. Been in the game for over 10 years. IMHO, It is most likely the duo Hal Finney and Len Sassaman. Hal is no longer with us but had extensive knowledge of cryptography and SHA block cipher.

reliable35

Between $5-10. DeepSeek’s AI-accelerated quantum breakthroughs crack SHA-256, nullifying BTC’s security. Mining collapses, trust evaporates; Bitcoin plummets to $5-10 as a speculative relic, sustained only by nostalgia, not utility. Quantum supremacy & AI innovation erase crypto’s foundational trust, leaving BTC a decorative artifact…

DiedOnTitan

You have some good counterpoints, but physical batteries fail the test for money for a number of reasons: money needs to be transferable over a communications network from one point to another and this is not possible with gold or batteries. Our electrical grid transfers energy from one point to many. Not from one node to another. There may be tech to transfer energy from one battery to another in physical proximity, but transferring energy from someone in NYC to someone in Bulgaria is simply not possible. The energy required to create a Bitcoin cannot be disassembled and reused as energy, but it is used to \*secure\* Bitcoin's cryptographic properties. The Sudoku puzzle analogy also fails. While there is some metaphorical connection to validating a block with solving a Sudoku puzzle, Bitcoin units are not solved Sudoku puzzles. A Sudoku puzzle solution can now be copied ad infinitum. A Bitcoin retains it's immutability through a "Sudoku puzzle" that cannot be solved by anyone other than the generator of the Sudoku who holds securely the solution (private keys). Validating a block is dozens of orders of magnitude easier than cracking a single SHA256 Bitcoin private key. To make your analogy a bit closer to Bitcoin, you can say units of Bitcoin represent an impossible to solve Sudoku wrapped inside of a solvable Sudoku (block) and solving that initial Sudoku will take 10 minutes on average with a difficulty adjustment to keep that heart beat consistent. Once again, immensely complex and unsolvable Sudoku's \*secure\* bitcoin from being replicated and spent by anyone other than the holder of the solution. But easier solvable Sudoku's have people competing to solve them and they get rewarded for doing so. Good money is an abstraction from useful things. Gold has industrial and cosmetic value, but the monetary premium represents 90% of it's value. Gold is useful because it is scarce and has many good properties of money. It is a natural ledger that cannot be inflated without real work (mining, smelting, forging, distribution, storage, physical security). Your arguments against Bitcoin apply to the monetary premium aspect of gold. You cannot unpack gold and retrieve the huge amount of work that was spent to concentrate it into it's present value. Nor does money require it to be disintegrated back into the raw energy used to make it. Never has in history. Wampum belts were a store of energy for the same reason. Bitcoin solves for inflation and contains all the valuable properties of money that make it superior to gold and fiat and futuristic batteries: fungibility, durability, uniformity, scarcity, portability, verifiability, divisibility, and it is transferable over a communications network. This is where gold failed us in the information age. We invented gold backed money (Bretton Woods) that can be transferred overseas, but the ledgers got corrupted, then we said, fiat will no longer be backed by gold (1971). We were lulled into a sense of USD having value because of Bretton Woods, and we find ourselves today with a currency that is debased at the rate of 7% per year since 1971. Now we have something akin to digital gold (Bitcoin) which solves all of these problems.

Status-Pilot1069

So can we use SHA 256 for something else, maybe could be my question:.?  Thanks 

FirstAmendmentIsDead

Yes. The chips are designed to do SHA-256 only, nothing else. It’s not like a regular CPU where you can run any program you want. The design of the asic chips are very specific and specialized for one task only.

Fit_Psychology_1536

Quantum eventually cracking SHA-256 / ECDSA

mjredditacc

SHA-256 / SHA-512 becoming obsolete, potentially by quantum. However there there things that ease my nerves, if a quantum pc cracks 256 they would still need majority mining power etc

Status-Pilot1069

So, it really is application specific. No use outside of BTC / other SHA256 alts??

uncapchad

As far as I understand it, any SHA-256 ASIC can be used to mine any SHA-256 coin. Here's a list [https://coinmarketcap.com/view/sha-256/](https://coinmarketcap.com/view/sha-256/)

ForeverLaur4

I've never verified a signature before, so I'm pretty confused since I barely understand anything. I asked ChatGPT for help and got something about SHA-256 and other related terms, but I still don’t know what to do or how the verification process actually works.

Fit_Psychology_1536

True! He hates BTC. In his last interview on BTC with CNBC he said he believes Satoshi will eventually "wipe all the bitcoin away". Im not saying he's dumb. He's just ignorant and uninformed.  That's why I said anyone "legitamate" meaning someone that has a legitimate, informed position. I havent found anyone yet! But who knows, they probably exist somewhere.  In my opinion, legitimate arguments include the threat of quantum computing one day breaking Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) and the SHA-256 hashing algorithm. But I'm not seeing anyone say that other than pro-btc people who recognize the threat

yokmubenisiken

Not worried, I always use SHA-257 at home.

LargeSnorlax

People have to stop pushing the quantum narrative. If Quantum computing is breaking SHA-256 reliably in minutes then the world goes down a dumpster, because **everything** is secured with SHA-256. No one cares about Bitcoin when they have access to Russia's or the US's nukes, or state secrets, or all of the world's emails.

alineali

Even more than this. These coins are in addresses that are basically public keys, while newer addresses (even pre-segwit) addresses are hashed public keys. So for the older ones it is enough to hack EC cryptography which is simpler problem than hacking both EC and SHA256/RIPEMD-160

Charming-Designer944

SHA256 is only 256 bits. And requires only 512 bits for the calculation iirc. SHA is a cryptographic hash, which means it calculates a short hash value based on the input data (document, or bitcoin block) with the properties that a) Any change in the input data affects all bits in the hash value seemingly randomly with equal probability. b) It is a one-way function. You can not reconstruct the input data that generated the resulting hash from the hash. c) You can not predict how any change of the input data will affect the resulting hash value. What bitcoin miners does is that they try varying the mined block slightly until the resulting SHA256 block hash fulfills the current difficulty criteria. And this is done at a tremendous speed, currently about 830 quintillion attempts per second. 8.1692 \* 10\^20 = 830.000.000.000.000.000.000.

Cucuputih

No, each mining attempt is unique because the inputs change every time (like the transaction data and the random nonce miners tweak to find a valid hash). Since SHA-256 is super sensitive to even the tiniest change in input, you'll almost never see the exact same hash result twice in mining. That said, technically, hashes can repeat (since there are more possible inputs than outputs), but the odds of that happening in mining are so insanely low that it's not something anyone worries about.

Cucuputih

Well, a 64-bit machine can still do SHA-256 because it doesn’t just work with 64-bit numbers. It can handle smaller chunks, like 32-bit, and combine them to process bigger data. SHA-256 breaks things into 32-bit pieces anyway, so the CPU just works through them step by step. Plus, dedicated mining hardware (like GPUs and ASICs) is way better at it since they’re built for this kind of work.

Cucuputih

Good question but nope, that wouldn’t work. Bitcoin uses SHA-256, which is a one-way cryptographic hash function. So you can generate a hash from an input, but you can’t reverse it or predict the output. Trying to store every possible input-output pair isn’t realistic either. There are 2^256 possible hashes, which is such a massive number that even if you had all the storage on Earth, you wouldn’t come close to storing them all. That’s why mining is just a brute-force guessing game. There’s no shortcut, and AI wouldn’t help because the whole point of SHA-256 is that the only way to solve it is to keep guessing.

SpecialDonkey6563

No. It’s SHA256 on every machine. You are talking 2^256 numbers. To give you an idea of how big that is, the number of atoms in the universe is probably around 2^80.

Pasukaru0

SHA is not the problem. ECDSA is.

DereksCrazy

Asked chat GPT how I could crack Satoshi’s wallet with this 8 qubit processor and it gave me the following: An 8-qubit processor is far from capable of breaking Bitcoin’s cryptography. Bitcoin’s security is based on elliptic curve cryptography (ECC) using the secp256k1 curve, which relies on the discrete logarithm problem—a problem that is currently infeasible to solve with classical or near-term quantum computers. Why Your 8-Qubit Processor Won’t Work: 1. Quantum Volume Matters More Than Qubit Count – An 8-qubit processor has neither the coherence time nor the error correction needed for meaningful cryptographic attacks. 2. Shor’s Algorithm Requires Thousands of Logical Qubits – To break a 256-bit ECC key, you would need a fault-tolerant quantum computer with millions of physical qubits to account for noise and error correction. 3. Current Quantum Computers Are Not There Yet – The most advanced quantum processors today (as of 2025) are in the range of a few hundred physical qubits and are far from breaking ECC or SHA-256. What Would Be Needed to Break Bitcoin? • A large-scale, fault-tolerant quantum computer with at least 3000+ logical qubits (which translates to millions of physical qubits). • A stable implementation of Shor’s algorithm for ECC, which is purely theoretical for now. • Decades of advancements in quantum error correction and hardware. Reality Check: Bitcoin remains safe from quantum attacks in the foreseeable future. If practical quantum attacks on ECC emerge, the Bitcoin network can upgrade to quantum-resistant cryptography (e.g., lattice-based cryptography) before any real threat materializes. If you’re interested in quantum computing, it’s more productive to explore fields like quantum chemistry, optimization, and cryptographic research rather than hypothetical attacks on well-secured systems.

CanadianCompSciGuy

From my limited understanding, we need to be in the realm of *billions* of qbits to break SHA-256 in a reasonable timeframe. Majorana 1 is like a *million* qbits. So the latest newest best thing, needs to be a million times better. The scare of quantum computing breaking todays cryptographic security is just not a real concern. 10 years from now, we should probably set up a committee to think about what we should do, and give them another 10 years to discuss and give it a good ol'thinkin.

ultron290196

The problem is the satoshi wallet coins that will be accessed by quantum computers in the future. The quantum proof wallets will have to be manually upgraded. All lost coins are potentially a target. I expect a BTC flash crash from 10 million to 1 million when quantum computing breaks SHA256. Then the final redistribution will be complete. The gini coefficient of BTC will fall again or actually it could get worse as Google or Microsoft might hoard all the lost BTC for themselves. But then again it's unlikely as the global arms race for quantum computing is already underway. Once this phenomenon is completed and all BTC wallets turn quantum proof, things go back to normal

Pure_Ad_9865

Hedera(HBAR) is SHA-384 post-quantum resistant and will be used in SEALSQ quantum resistant IoT network

hughhefnerd

This is not true, Bitcoins code is upgradeable. If SHA-256 is cracked suddenly by an non reputable source, a consensus of the last good block can be made, the hash algorithms updated to to withstand the new threat and keep going. I would suggest you research cryptography a bit more, it's a fascinating and deeply technical subject. If you have even the slightest interest read my comment here:

TewMuch

SHA256 is not at risk from QC.

Traditional-Fan-9315

No this is wrong. You're looking at investopedia for answers to a complicated programming problem. Even though QC is powerful it's not bitcoin mining that will be effected. Hash pre-images are quantum safe. Discreet log and prime factorization are vulnerable to shor's algorithm. Not sha256 ie the crypto wallets. And it's not all the wallets. The elliptical digits signature would be vulnerable. 2 algorithms: sha256 and ECDSA (digital signature). If QC can crack ESA and not SHA256 then the only coins effected will be addresses with coins reused several times. You can change algorithms on active wallets but lost key wallets won't be able to change the signing algorithm. The biggest risk is satoshi's wallet and all wallets that have been lost.

Kemilio

“Mining and signatures are crucial to how the Bitcoin system functions. Mining is how new Bitcoins are created, and transactions are verified and added to the blockchain. If a quantum computer could crack the SHA-256 algorithm used in mining, it could take over that process, tampering with transaction history or preventing new ones from being confirmed. In addition, if it could tamper with the ECDSA encryption for signatures, an attacker could steal Bitcoins by forging transactions to appear legitimate or impersonate users by taking over Bitcoin wallets.” https://www.investopedia.com/can-quantum-computing-revolutionize-crypto-8759455

hughhefnerd

I'm replying to you, rather than brtastic, because while he is technically correct, I feel as though you may benefit more from a more simplistic breakdown (please don't think I'm being condescending, this also helped solidify my knowledge gaps) There are different cryptographic concepts/ techniques which are easily confused because they can be used in different ways: Public Key Cryptography: Is an asymmetric cryptographic system that uses a mathematically linked key pair (public and private keys) PKC has multiple applications beyond just securing data. It can be used for encryption, digital signatures, and key exchange. In encryption, the public key encrypts, and the private key decrypts (used in HTTPS, PGP). In digital signatures, the private key signs data, and the public key verifies authenticity (used in Bitcoin transactions and document signing). Encryption: There are two types of encryption but essentially encryption is the process of making data unreadable/unusable (encrypted) until it can be rendered useable again with a key (unencrypted): Symmetric Encryption: Uses the same key for encryption and decryption. Asymmetric Encryption: Uses a Key Pair, which are essentially mathematically intertwined keys (RSA, ECC) in which the encryption key is different than the decryption key. Hashing: Hashing is a cryptographic process that transforms input data into a fixed-length string (hash) using a mathematical algorithm. It is a one-way function, meaning the original data cannot be reversed from the hash. Even a small change in the input produces a drastically different output. Hashing is used for data integrity verification, password storage, and proof-of-work in Bitcoin mining. Common hashing algorithms include SHA-256 (used in Bitcoin), MD5, and Bcrypt. Unlike encryption, hashing does not require a key and is meant for verification, not secrecy. Hopefully that helps clear some of the concepts up, and explains what brtastic was saying.

wanderrrr34

What Grok had to say… No, Bitcoin’s network, while impressive in scale and complexity, is not considered the most powerful computing network on Earth in terms of raw computational power or efficiency: - **Computational Power**: Bitcoin’s network primarily utilizes computational power for mining, which involves solving SHA-256 hashing puzzles. While the total hash rate of Bitcoin is enormous, this power is specifically geared towards one type of computation rather than a broad spectrum of computational tasks. - **Purpose**: Bitcoin’s network is optimized for maintaining a blockchain, securing transactions, and issuing new bitcoins, not for general-purpose computing. In contrast, supercomputers like those mentioned earlier (e.g., Frontier, Aurora) are designed for a wide array of scientific computations, simulations, and data analysis, offering versatility beyond Bitcoin’s scope. - **Efficiency**: The energy consumption of Bitcoin mining is significant, often criticized for its environmental impact. Supercomputers, while also energy-intensive, are typically more efficient in terms of computation per watt and are used for tasks that can directly benefit scientific research and human knowledge. - **Scalability**: Bitcoin’s network can scale in terms of computational power through more miners joining the network, but this scaling is directly linked to the economic incentive of mining. Supercomputing networks scale based on the needs of scientific projects, technological advancements, and funding. - **Coordination and Use**: Bitcoin’s decentralized nature means there’s no coordinated effort to maximize computational power for any single task beyond mining. Supercomputers and large-scale computing networks like those in research institutions or tech companies are often part of coordinated efforts to solve specific problems or run complex simulations. Therefore, while Bitcoin’s network is incredibly powerful in its domain, it wouldn’t be classified as the most powerful computing network on Earth when considering the breadth of computational capability, efficiency, and purpose.

wanderrrr34

I asked Grok, it disagreed…. No, Bitcoin’s network, while impressive in scale and complexity, is not considered the most powerful computing network on Earth in terms of raw computational power or efficiency: - **Computational Power**: Bitcoin’s network primarily utilizes computational power for mining, which involves solving SHA-256 hashing puzzles. While the total hash rate of Bitcoin is enormous, this power is specifically geared towards one type of computation rather than a broad spectrum of computational tasks. - **Purpose**: Bitcoin’s network is optimized for maintaining a blockchain, securing transactions, and issuing new bitcoins, not for general-purpose computing. In contrast, supercomputers like those mentioned earlier (e.g., Frontier, Aurora) are designed for a wide array of scientific computations, simulations, and data analysis, offering versatility beyond Bitcoin’s scope. - **Efficiency**: The energy consumption of Bitcoin mining is significant, often criticized for its environmental impact. Supercomputers, while also energy-intensive, are typically more efficient in terms of computation per watt and are used for tasks that can directly benefit scientific research and human knowledge. - **Scalability**: Bitcoin’s network can scale in terms of computational power through more miners joining the network, but this scaling is directly linked to the economic incentive of mining. Supercomputing networks scale based on the needs of scientific projects, technological advancements, and funding. - **Coordination and Use**: Bitcoin’s decentralized nature means there’s no coordinated effort to maximize computational power for any single task beyond mining. Supercomputers and large-scale computing networks like those in research institutions or tech companies are often part of coordinated efforts to solve specific problems or run complex simulations. Therefore, while Bitcoin’s network is incredibly powerful in its domain, it wouldn’t be classified as the most powerful computing network on Earth when considering the breadth of computational capability, efficiency, and purpose. If you’re looking for visuals to compare these networks, I can generate images for you.

brtastic

What are you on about? Cracking private keys doesn't require an 51% attack. There is no SHA encryption, SHA are hash functions. Security does not come from any form of encryption but from public key cryptography via elliptic curves and Schnorr signatures.

chowdaaa

At this point the bitcoin network is the entire energy grid of the planet. You would need 51% of the compute power of the planet to overwhelm the bitcoin rules. People who think quantum computing will overcome the SHA encryption don’t understand that bitcoin has a mechanism for upgrading its encryption - and that will happen if it’s determined there is a threat from quantum computing.

metalzip

> as its core cryptographic components—like SHA-256—were developed by the NSA lol lamao.

BtcKing1111

Bitcoin’s origins suggest intelligence community involvement, as its core cryptographic components—like SHA-256—were developed by the NSA, and early contributors were linked to U.S. government-funded research. Launched after the 2008 financial crash, Bitcoin may have been a controlled experiment in digital finance, offering a trackable yet decentralized system to monitor global transactions. Satoshi’s sudden disappearance, the project’s alignment with intelligence goals (such as disrupting authoritarian economies), and Bitcoin’s transparent ledger all hint at a well-planned operation rather than a lone coder’s invention. If the CIA or NSA didn’t create Bitcoin, they likely had knowledge of it from the start.

dylan6091

A blockchain is nothing but an insanely inefficient ledger. Depending on the protocol, that MAY come with the benefit of immutability and decentralization. But that limits potentially useful coins to Proof of Work coins, eliminating 99% of alts. Within that small remaining grouping, any non-Bitcoin token that runs on SHA-256 is also not immutable given that it can be 51% attacked with ease. Within the tiny remaining grouping, ask yourself if the project you're looking at *really* benefits from being immutable and decentralized. The vast majority do not. I honestly can't think of a non-monetary use-case for Blockchain, which leads us back to Bitcoin.

rubblemynuts

``` import hashlib def double_sha256(data: bytes) -> bytes: “””Perform double SHA-256 hashing.””” return hashlib.sha256(hashlib.sha256(data).digest()).digest() def calculate_merkle_root(tx_hashes: list) -> str: if not tx_hashes: return None # Convert transaction hashes from hex (little-endian) to bytes tx_hashes = [bytes.fromhex(h[‘hash’])[::-1] for h in tx_hashes] while len(tx_hashes) > 1: # If odd number of hashes, duplicate the last one if len(tx_hashes) % 2 == 1: tx_hashes.append(tx_hashes[-1]) new_level = [] for i in range(0, len(tx_hashes), 2): # Concatenate pairs and double SHA-256 hash combined_hash = double_sha256(tx_hashes[i] + tx_hashes[i + 1]) # Convert back to bytes new_level.append(combined_hash) tx_hashes = new_level # Return the Merkle root as a hex string in little-endian order return tx_hashes[0][::-1].hex() ```

rubblemynuts

import hashlib import struct def double_sha256(data: bytes) -> bytes: “””Performs double SHA-256 hashing.””” return hashlib.sha256(hashlib.sha256(data).digest()).digest() def mine_block(version, prev_hash, merkle_root, timestamp, bits): nonce = 0 while True: # Create block header header = ( struct.pack(“<L”, version) + # 4 bytes - Version bytes.fromhex(prev_hash)[::-1] + # 32 bytes - Previous Block Hash bytes.fromhex(merkle_root)[::-1] + # 32 bytes - Merkle Root struct.pack(“<L”, timestamp) + # 4 bytes - Timestamp struct.pack(“<L”, bits) + # 4 bytes - Difficulty Target struct.pack(“<L”, nonce) # 4 bytes - Nonce ) # Hash the header twice (double SHA-256) hash_result = double_sha256(header) # Convert to hex and reverse for little-endian representation hash_hex = hash_result[::-1].hex() # Compare with target difficulty (simplified check) if int(hash_hex, 16) < (1 << (256 - bits)): # This is an approximation return nonce, hash_hex # Valid nonce found nonce += 1 # Try next nonce # Example usage (random values for demonstration) version = 2 prev_hash = “0000000000000000000769c012b8b9b4d29f4f3b9b5f1a09a8b6893b2b6e1234” merkle_root = “4d5c1e4ae2c12301a8c6c44d2fdf65e69d6f3c7e2b2f89d7c87ed3e02f8b76b5” timestamp = 1700000000 bits = 24 # Example difficulty target nonce, block_hash = mine_block(version, prev_hash, merkle_root, timestamp, bits) print(f”Valid Nonce: {nonce}”) print(f”Block Hash: {block_hash}”)

rubblemynuts

import hashlib import struct def double_sha256(data: bytes) -> bytes: “””Performs double SHA-256 hashing.””” return hashlib.sha256(hashlib.sha256(data).digest()).digest() def mine_block(version, prev_hash, merkle_root, timestamp, bits): nonce = 0 while True: # Create block header header = ( struct.pack(“<L”, version) + # 4 bytes - Version bytes.fromhex(prev_hash)[::-1] + # 32 bytes - Previous Block Hash bytes.fromhex(merkle_root)[::-1] + # 32 bytes - Merkle Root struct.pack(“<L”, timestamp) + # 4 bytes - Timestamp struct.pack(“<L”, bits) + # 4 bytes - Difficulty Target struct.pack(“<L”, nonce) # 4 bytes - Nonce ) # Hash the header twice (double SHA-256) hash_result = double_sha256(header) # Convert to hex and reverse for little-endian representation hash_hex = hash_result[::-1].hex() # Compare with target difficulty (simplified check) if int(hash_hex, 16) < (1 << (256 - bits)): # This is an approximation return nonce, hash_hex # Valid nonce found nonce += 1 # Try next nonce # Example usage (random values for demonstration) version = 2 prev_hash = “0000000000000000000769c012b8b9b4d29f4f3b9b5f1a09a8b6893b2b6e1234” merkle_root = “4d5c1e4ae2c12301a8c6c44d2fdf65e69d6f3c7e2b2f89d7c87ed3e02f8b76b5” timestamp = 1700000000 bits = 24 # Example difficulty target nonce, block_hash = mine_block(version, prev_hash, merkle_root, timestamp, bits) print(f”Valid Nonce: {nonce}”) print(f”Block Hash: {block_hash}”)

oak1337

XRP won't replace Swift. They can't scale to meet that demand (XRP 1500TPS max), and their security is trash (compared to rest of crypto - SHA-512half). If they shard the network to meet the scalability, their security actually gets worse. XRP is kind of hot trash full of hot air and hype. BTC is too slow and expensive to be used on a large scale basis ($$$ per txn and like 10TPS max). But the narrative has changed over time from "new global currency" to "store of value". Basically buy and hold, hope other people do too, and sell it to them. Every DLT is essentially trying to solve 1 problem. Consensus. Getting a bunch of computers all over the world to come to Consensus about the order of transactions. Every chain comes up with a slightly different way of doing this, and that can be calculated into their "Consensus Overhead". How much time, money, and energy does it take you to come to Consensus. HBAR is the mathematical end game of all DLTs. It gets Consensus for free, due to "Gossip about Gossip" and "Virtual Voting". Hedera is superior to all blockchains due to having the lowest possible Consensus Overhead (free). HBAR is King 👑

YknMZ2N4

All addresses are safe until they transact - since that’s what exposes the public key from which the quantum computer can derive the private key (in theory). A hard fork to protect addresses that are transacting would require a software change to replace SHA-256 and ECDSA with quantum resistant variants which are currently being developed. None of this would change the monetary policy of Bitcoin.

YknMZ2N4

I don’t follow your question. Lost keys have little to do with this. Take Satoshis coins - these would be safe from a quantum computer that could break SHA-256 since they (for the most part) never moved, and so there is no exposed public key from which to derive the private key. A soft fork would work to protect those paying attention while leaving the people I described earlier vulnerable. A quantum computer capable of breaking ECDSA - which is far far further down the road (if possible at all) would require a hard fork and Satoshis coins wouldn’t be safe either. Hard forks aren’t inherently bad, in this case it would be nearly guaranteed that all network participants would immediately reach consensus to do the fork to protect themselves, and this would happen long before an actual machine were realized in the real world.

Otherwise_Tiger3760

Yes, an ASIC-like chip using quantum computing principles could theoretically be developed, but it would be fundamentally different from classical ASICs used in cryptocurrency mining. Here’s how it could work and its potential implications: 1. Quantum ASIC: A Hybrid Approach A Quantum ASIC (QASIC) would combine application-specific design with quantum computing principles to enhance mining efficiency. Instead of relying on classical transistor-based ASIC chips, it would use qubits for specific computations. • Quantum Gates for Hashing: A QASIC could leverage quantum superposition and entanglement to process multiple hash attempts simultaneously, dramatically increasing mining efficiency. • Quantum Parallelism: Unlike classical ASICs, which perform calculations one at a time per chip, quantum-based ASICs could potentially evaluate multiple hashes in parallel. • Optimized for Specific Algorithms: Just like traditional ASICs are designed for Bitcoin’s SHA-256 or Ethereum’s Ethash, a QASIC could be engineered for a specific quantum-resistant hashing function. 2. Potential Benefits of a Quantum ASIC • Exponential Speedup: Quantum computers leverage Shor’s Algorithm (for breaking RSA encryption) and Grover’s Algorithm (for speeding up search problems). If a mining process can be optimized using quantum search, it could provide a quadratic or even exponential speedup in hash solving. • Energy Efficiency: Quantum chips do not generate heat in the same way as classical silicon chips. A quantum ASIC could require far less energy than current mining rigs. • Superior Adaptability: A programmable quantum ASIC could be adapted for multiple cryptographic functions, making it more resistant to obsolescence than classical ASICs. 3. Challenges of Quantum ASICs Despite the potential advantages, several hurdles must be overcome: A. Quantum Error Correction • Qubits are extremely sensitive to noise and decoherence. • Current error correction methods require hundreds to thousands of physical qubits per logical qubit, making practical mining implementation difficult. B. Quantum-Resistant Hashing • If quantum ASICs become viable, blockchain protocols may need to switch to quantum-resistant cryptographic algorithms (e.g., Lattice-based cryptography, hash-based cryptography). • A quantum ASIC might not necessarily outperform a classical ASIC if the mining algorithm is designed to be quantum-resistant. C. Hardware Development & Cost • Current quantum computing hardware is bulky, expensive, and requires cryogenic cooling (except for photonic quantum computing, which is still in early stages). • The cost of developing a quantum ASIC would be extremely high, making it unfeasible for mainstream mining—at least in the near term. 4. Feasibility Timeline • Short-Term (0-5 years): Classical ASICs will dominate, but early-stage hybrid quantum-classical mining research might emerge. • Mid-Term (5-15 years): Quantum-resistant cryptographic algorithms could be widely implemented, and small-scale quantum accelerators may assist in classical mining. • Long-Term (15+ years): If quantum error correction and scalability improve, dedicated quantum ASIC miners could challenge classical ASIC dominance. 5. Application to Your Digital Asset Model Given your interest in quantum-secured digital assets, a quantum ASIC mining mechanism could fit well within your system. Here’s how: • The randomized hashing algorithm you envision could be adapted for a quantum mining system. • Quantum chips could enhance security while keeping mining decentralized by preventing early monopolization. • The introduction of quantum-enhanced mining difficulty adjustments could create a fairer playing field. Would you want to explore specific quantum-resistant cryptographic methods that could integrate with your model?

4lteredBeast

While you got a lot right here that most don't (re unused addresses and secp256k1 vs SHA256), Bitcoin is not the most decentralised chain, nor can it facilitate a future of trustless transactions. Bitcoin has literally only had one solo-mined block in a decade - and Bitcoin Twitter celebrated like it was a win. The fact that Bitcoin has a "winner takes all" reward system means that it incentivises centralisation, and the block rewards are proof of this. Mining pools rule the roost here - that is not a decentralised validation network. Regarding transactions, there is no way to transact on Bitcoin without simply trusting the other party. In order to buy something, you can only send your BTC to an address and hope that you receive whatever you bought. You can't pay for anything conditionally - it's just not a robust system.

GreemBeam

This is just the beginning. This technology is the first time humanity has ever experienced this digital eqiuvalent of physical ownership. Technology where an item can be created with unchangable properties. Bitcoin is the first and most decentralised, rapidly rising hashrate, 50k+ nodes, cementing its unchangability and resiliance. You can transfer wealth from A to B permissionlessly, without a corporation in the middle. That's its utility, and it will always be required, the digital equivalent of handing someone a physical coin. No bullshit no questions asked transfers. No bullshit unchangable hard-cap. Quantum computers are still a ways away from cracking ECDSA and SHA256 (an address which has never been spent from is protected by both of these - a 'spent from' address is protected by ECDSA only). When these are cracked so is encryption of the entire internet. We will see a revolution. Quantum computers breaking Bitcoin is not something to be feared, it's something to be excited about. The blockchain can be restored from a date prior to the incident, where there will be hard-forks with quantum resistant algorithms. There will no doubt be multiple coins proposed as the 'new Bitcoin', and there will be a battle for dominance. Everyone who holds their own keys; their own coins will receive their wallet balance on EVERY hard-fork. Any coins held on an exchange, or if you're in the ETF, those most definitely will not. So stack sats, self-custody your own coins. It's going to be a wild ride.

Just-Minute-4248

thank you, I am using from python hashlib.sha256. Just do double def double_sha256(hex_string):     """Performs double SHA-256 hashing."""     data = bytes.fromhex(hex_string)     return hashlib.sha256(hashlib.sha256(data).digest()).hexdigest() I see now that I should revert end hash, but still than I get 0000000000000000002050b14fbb34c908e65a9fcd43dee2159b1cd20e5a0d94 which is close but not exact