{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2017-02-24\n📝 Original message:On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 05:49:36PM -0600, Steve Davis via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e If the 20 byte SHA1 is now considered insecure (with good reason), what about RIPEMD-160 which is the foundation of Bitcoin addresses?\n\nSHA1 is insecure because the SHA1 algorithm is insecure, not because 160bits isn't enough.\n\nAFAIK there aren't any known weaknesses in RIPEMD160, but it also hasn't been\nas closely studied as more common hash algorithms. That said, Bitcoin uses\nRIPEMD160(SHA256(msg)), which may make creating collisions harder if an attack\nis found than if it used RIPEMD160 alone.\n\n-- \nhttps://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 455 bytes\nDesc: Digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170224/85794f98/attachment.sig\u003e"}