rich1.0npub1s4lj77xuzcu7wy04afcr487f0r3za0f8n2775xrpkld2sv639mjqsd44kwhttps://nostr.ae/npub1s4lj77xuzcu7wy04afcr487f0r3za0f8n2775xrpkld2sv639mjqsd44kwnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2016-01-07 📝 Original message:On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 6:52 PM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille at gmail.com> wrote: > Bitcoin does have parts that rely on economic arguments for security or > privacy, but can we please stick to using cryptography that is up to par > for parts where we can? It's a small constant factor of data, and it > categorically removes the worry about security levels. > Our message may have crossed in the mod queue: "So can we quantify the incremental increase in security of SHA256(SHA256) over RIPEMD160(SHA256) versus the incremental increase in security of having a simpler implementation of segwitness?" I believe the history of computer security is that implementation errors and sidechannel attacks are much, much more common than brute-force breaks. KEEP IT SIMPLE. (and a quibble: "do a 80-bit search for B and C such that H(A and B) = H(B and C)" isn't enough, you have to end up with a C public key for which you know the corresponding private key or the attacker just succeeds in burning the funds) -- -- Gavin Andresen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160107/f73f2f2c/attachment.html>