Please clarify your statement? Do you mean you disclaim the need for cryptanalysis of a new hash function used in PoW or do you disclaim something Wolf0 wrote?
Wolf0 I apologize to lose my temper, but I don't like the deal where you require me to do all work for your group, else I can't speak to common methodology in cryptography to offer some insights.
Everyone knows that cryptography breaks when your input entropy is broken. Duh!
That is why it is so important to insure your random generator isn't subject to a birthday attack. The same applies to the random oracles you use when doing lookups in a scratchpad.
I mean we don't make any claims of it never having been broken or being perfectly secure. I'm not sure if you follow the Monero Missives at all, but
when we released the whitepaper review we said the following:
The initial work has been completed on analysing the CryptoNote whitepaper, and the review that has come out of it is now available to all. This is an academic approach to analysing it, and is the first step in figuring out whether the principles it espouses are reflected in the Monero code, and (further to that) how we can improve on its deficiencies. You can grab the whitepaper review here:
http://monero.cc/downloads/whitepaper_review.pdfWe also expanded on that explanation in
the following Monero Missive:
Now that the CryptoNote whitepaper has been peer reviewed by our mathematicians and cryptographers, they have begun initial work reviewing the implementation thereof. This is most especially important, as Monero has inherited quite a bit from the CryptoNote reference code. The initial focus is on the cryptographic primitives and higher-level cryptographic functions, which will be evaluated by code analysis as well as by running test vectors (that are different from those in the Monero test suite) against those functions. The methodologies and results will, of course, be published in due time.