Timeline for Near preimages, applicable to Bitcoin?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 8, 2014 at 23:04 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackCrypto/status/453669806672474113 | ||
| Mar 28, 2014 at 13:32 | comment | added | Thomas | @tylo I think the question was whether cryptanalysis techniques existed to improve upon brute force and thereby defeat the Bitcoin proof-of-work scheme. | |
| Mar 28, 2014 at 4:45 | answer | added | D.W. | timeline score: 1 | |
| Mar 27, 2014 at 14:29 | comment | added | tylo | As far as I know, bitcoin mining is pretty much a brute-force effort: Try out different combinations, e.g. starting at a random value and then increment by $1$, so that you don't cover numbers that someone else already checked. There is no cryptanalysis done, or any kind of advanced attack technique. | |
| Mar 27, 2014 at 10:01 | comment | added | Cryptographeur |
Often referred to as SHA-256d
|
|
| Mar 27, 2014 at 7:49 | history | edited | fgrieu♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Link to references on target and difficultly
|
| Mar 27, 2014 at 7:41 | comment | added | fgrieu♦ | Actually, Bitcoin mining seems closer to requiring to find $X$ such that $\text{SHA-256}(\text{SHA-256}(X))<\text{target}$ (I have the details fuzzy); so the function to attack is not $\text{SHA-256}$, but rather $\text{SHA-256}^2$. In any case, I know no attack, even theoretical, on even (full) $\text{SHA-256}$. | |
| Mar 27, 2014 at 7:39 | history | edited | fgrieu♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
target, not difficulty
|
| Mar 27, 2014 at 6:47 | history | edited | fgrieu♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Make the question intelligible; change the title radically
|
| Mar 27, 2014 at 6:07 | history | edited | user3201068 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 52 characters in body
|
| Mar 27, 2014 at 5:27 | history | asked | user3201068 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |