Quote from: kTimesG on Today at 02:47:52 PM

Quote from: mcdouglasx on Today at 02:33:28 PM

Thus, probabilities change depending on how you search.

It is likely that a more efficient search method exists. And no, this does not break cryptography

Are you reading yourself?

If a more efficient search method exists, that, by definition, means the hashing algorithm is broken.

A broken hash algorithm means that cryptography is broken.

If you're talking in the non-crypto framework, it is even much much worse: you are implying that you can read people mind's when you ask them to think of a random number, without going through all the possible numbers.

I'm giving up. I'll go play Prince of Persia while you gibber up some answer that I don't really care about any longer. Cheesy

Come on, guys, I’m not going to change my stance without real proof that my proposal is useless. Theorizing without evidence is something only conspiracy theorists do. Bram fears for WP; what I said hurt him. As for you, I’m not sure what your purpose is, since we’re still waiting for your miraculous version of Kangaroo. Maybe that’s why RC pushed them aside, too toxic.