SHA-1 'fully and practically broken' by new collision (2020)

Re:SHA-1 'fully and practically broken' by new collision (2020) by asdfman123 on Tuesday October 12, 2021 @05:13PM (#28845163)

I wonder how much money in Bitcoin they would have made if they had used those hashes to mine instead.

Speaking of which, it would be funny if they were pretending to do security research but added a secret backdoor to mine bitcoin instead, somehow exporting those hashes or using the partial results of SHA-1 calculations (BTC isn't SHA-1).

I'm just joking, but I wonder if that's possible. If anyone is Machiavellian enough for that, it's security researchers.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:SHA-1 'fully and practically broken' by new collision (2020) by garmaine on Tuesday October 12, 2021 @10:48PM (#28847678)

Well, they made 2.4994722 BTC directly by exploiting a smart contract on bitcoin that pays out to anyone demonstrating a SHA-1 collision.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:SHA-1 'fully and practically broken' by new collision (2020) by fsckboy on Tuesday October 12, 2021 @07:19PM (#28846295)

mining bitcoin on one GPU is uneconomical, so mining bitcoin an a large number of them is... also.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:SHA-1 'fully and practically broken' by new collision (2020) by FredPret on Tuesday October 12, 2021 @07:44PM (#28846496)

Unless your research grant pays for the electricity

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:SHA-1 'fully and practically broken' by new collision (2020) by asdfman123 on Tuesday October 12, 2021 @09:54PM (#28847356)

Ding ding ding

[ Parent | on HN ]

[dead]

Re:SHA-1 'fully and practically broken' by new collision (2020) by exciteabletom on Tuesday October 12, 2021 @09:54PM (#28847358)

> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

> Be kind. Don't be snarky.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[ Parent | on HN ]