Not sure know what I can disclose. Electrum uses two rounds SHA256. Multibit HD uses scrypt with 16384,8,1.
Tests on CPU clusters with 24 threads are similar. I can publish more when the thesis is finished. What you take from it now is electrum is not defended against brute force, multibit hd is. ThePokerTranslator asked about security, this attack must have a wallet file. It might not what they ask about.
Ok, so if I am correctly understanding what you are saying... is that 2 rounds of SHA256 is a lot "faster" to compute than Scrypt 16384,8,1... so that, as it currently stands with current technology and methodologies, you can test passwords faster against an Electrum "wallet.dat" than you can against a Multibit HD "wallet.dat", because you can hash the input password faster.
Is that correct?
NOTE: I am not disputing your findings... I was just curious as to the how and what that graph was depicting... and if it is as I have asked, this is indeed useful information to know.
Yes. Is more complex, but yes. See schildbach app, it uses scrypt(4096,8,1). This scrypt can be calculated fast like sha 256. I think because its for phone which is not fast for scrypt default. Multibit classic uses md5. md5 is little bit broken. multibit hd is a good improvement over this.
Do not think now electrum is not good wallet please. Its special attack. Use longer password and all is ok. Dont get your file stolen is even better.