Quote from: Bram24732 on Today at 06:21:18 PM

Quote from: deep_seek on Today at 05:02:41 PM

I completely agree — no one has really explored this area deeply. That’s likely because of the overwhelming complexity, which discourages many due to the sheer scale of the mathematical research required. But if someone dares to explore any possibilities or probabilities hidden in this mountainous domain, it should be encouraged — not criticized or dismissed.

Sorry but you are mistaken.

The fact that SHA256 is a non reversible algorithm with no link between inputs and outputs (and with uniform distribution) has not only been proven mathematically, but this proof has stood the test of time for 25 years.

Bitcoin relies on that. So if you think prefixes (inputs) have ANY impact on their sha256 (outputs) it means you break this sha256 proof, which again, has been made by cryptographers 10 leagues above anyone posting in this thread.

EDIT :

A bit of reading if you're interested on SHA256 security against collision attacks. (esp. section 4.3)
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-540-24654-1_13.pdf

Let’s clarify something I’ve observed from those prefix supporters:

Prefix-based approaches aren’t about breaking SHA-256 or any hashing algorithm—they’re about optimizing search efficiency within a small keyspace.

There’s a big difference between violating a cryptographic function and experimenting with how we structure brute-force attempts over limited key ranges (like 69–71 bits).

Strategies like Kangaroo and BSGS don’t contradict SHA-256 either, yet they’re widely used to reduce computational load. Prefix approaches follow a similar mindset—not to break cryptography, but to shave off time and cycles where possible.

You’re quoting cryptographers “10 leagues above anyone here”,, fair enough. But those same cryptographers also encourage experimentation.

At the end Cryptographic exploration isn’t always about proving someone wrong—it’s also about creatively testing the boundaries of what’s possible within what’s already established.

Also, I appreciate the link. I'm definitely going to read through section 4.3 to understand more about SHA-256’s resistance to collision attacks. Valuable share.

Lol, I came here to calm things down, and somehow ended up being the guy stretching the thread even further! Grin