{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1cmt6gqyfw3sdngkq0wadtpe3kmgyyeld6ad0g2h5tar3kpzcrmpqddwkls","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1cmt6gqyfw3sdngkq0wadtpe3kmgyyeld6ad0g2h5tar3kpzcrmpqddwkls","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2017-02-24\n📝 Original message:On Fri, 2017-02-24 at 00:57 +0100, Aymeric Vitte via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e I have not worked on this since some time, so that's just thoughts,\n\u003e but maybe it can render things much more difficult\n\u003e than       computing two files until the same hash is found\n\u003e \n\nYou basically rely on the idea that specific collisions are more\ndifficult to find. This trick or similar tricks will not help. (And\nactually, the more files you add to the hash, the more freedom you give\nthe attacker.)\n\nEven if certain collisions are more difficult to find today (which is\ncertainly true), the general rule is that someone will prove you wrong\nin a year.\n\nEven if ignore security entirely, switching to new hash function is\nmuch simpler trying to fix the usage of a broken hash function.\n\nRelying on SHA1 is hopeless. We have to get rid of it.\n\nBest,\nTim"}