News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on “True” Randomness vs. “Pseudo” Randomness. Parent comment

Re:“True” Randomness vs. “Pseudo” Randomness by tromp on Sunday April 02, 2023 @02:16PM (#35413474)
> Not random

The least significant bits of a bitcoin PoW hash behave pretty randomly. You could either bet on a fixed future block height, or on the first block past a given future timestamp...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:“True” Randomness vs. “Pseudo” Randomness by lern_too_spel on Monday April 03, 2023 @02:06AM (#35419117)
This just relies on the pseudorandomness of SHA-256. You can skip a lot of waste and use SHA-256 directly.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:“True” Randomness vs. “Pseudo” Randomness by tromp on Monday April 03, 2023 @05:51AM (#35420892)
No; it relies on practically nobody being able to control what the SHA-256 is applied to.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:“True” Randomness vs. “Pseudo” Randomness by lern_too_spel on Tuesday April 04, 2023 @03:33AM (#35436300)
That's actually very easy to control. Just pay a high transaction fee. The nonce comes from a PRNG that doesn't have to pass many randomness checks. Your proposal really is no more random than a counter based SHA256 PRNG except with an awfully high sample latency.
[ Parent | on HN ]