Timeline for Would it matter if my miner was hashing random vs incremental values?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 22, 2015 at 16:42 | comment | added | mikeazo | @MaartenBodewes good point. | |
| Sep 22, 2015 at 16:39 | comment | added | Maarten Bodewes♦ | No, it's just called a distribution indistinguishable from random. On average, irrespective from input, you would expect a Hamming distance of half of the output for different inputs. It doesn't matter if you generate the new input using a RNG or by increasing the value. It does have something to do with the birthday problem; if your output is indistinguishable from random you can prove that collisions cannot be generated faster than using the birthday paradox. So in general, cryptographic hash function output is indistinguishable from random. | |
| Sep 22, 2015 at 16:37 | comment | added | mikeazo | @CoreyOgburn Yep, birthday paradox. | |
| Sep 22, 2015 at 16:35 | vote | accept | Corey Ogburn | ||
| Sep 22, 2015 at 16:20 | comment | added | Corey Ogburn | Oh yeah, isn't that called the birthday paradox? That may not be the name, but I remember that property. I'll switch back to my incremental version of the miner. | |
| Sep 22, 2015 at 16:15 | history | answered | mikeazo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |