Quote from: Bitware on April 15, 2015, 02:53:57 AM

This should put things in perspective for you...
http://miguelmoreno.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/fYFBsqp.jpg

The info graphic shows only that it would be inordinately difficult to brute force sha256.

I have to ask why some people are misrepresenting potential weaknesses in sha256.

md5 also was impossible to brute force but then several different ways were found to crack it within seconds on a home PC system.

Sha256 is as uncrackable by brute force as md5 and the evidence strongly suggests that it is just as cryptographically flawd as md5 as well.

Again, do you understand that your argument refers only to bruteforcing?
And do you understand that the argument thus looks good but has no merit whatsoever?

Or do you not understand that?

-------------------------------------------

Quote from: Bitware on April 15, 2015, 04:58:01 PM

Keccak subset SHA-3 also contains SHA384 (192 bit) and SHA512 (256 bit), so the Bitcoin Core can be upgraded if the need ever arises. Plus, I am sure more secure algorithms will be developed in the future that Bitcoin can be upgraded to if needed.

That said, I've yet to hear of a single collision with SHA256, and we know that cryptographers and hackers are trying to do it. But if you can produce any SHA256 collisions, please show us all, but I don't think you can.

This all is really a non-issue.

Keccak is sort of discredited by anyone who wants to research it.

There are a series of articles about NSA involvement in these algos that has more info. You might be able to find more info by searching "what the NSA created cryptonote for" or you might not.

The evidence seems to be that sha2 is broken, that keccak is not a secure substitute, and that there will be some effort to funnel people into cryptonote.

I don't think that will be successful and, aside from cryptonote in the very short term, I am looking for some algorithm that is profitable.

--------------------------------------

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on April 15, 2015, 12:48:45 PM

MD5 only had 64 bits of security, SHA-256 has 128.

Anyway, don't forget...information wants to be free.
If something is cracked, it won't be a secret for long.

When md5 was trusted the same sort of info graphic as above was used. The evidence indicates that md5 was broken for a long time before it was known to be broken, and that the history of public knowledge of its weakness was altered. In other words if you look at actual forum comments on various sites the timeline of awareness about its potential weaknesses is not quite what is portrayed on Wikipedia and elsewhere. Revisionists are covering their asses.

Looking at all the evidence I believe there is sufficient proof already that sha2 is broken.