rich1.0npub1ddqaln8xsfmy6sxqplt9sz5ev99kh052sveqsh02q7hmc3a6n68shpgp9ahttps://nostr.ae/npub1ddqaln8xsfmy6sxqplt9sz5ev99kh052sveqsh02q7hmc3a6n68shpgp9anjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2016-05-11 📝 Original message:Luke, do you mean to replace the first 4 bytes of the second chunk (bytes 64..67 in 0-based counting) by the XOR of those 4 bytes with the first 4 bytes of the midstate? (I assume you don't care about 12 bytes but rather those 4 bytes.) This does not work. All it does is adding another computational step before you can check for a collision in those 4 bytes. It makes finding a collision only marginally harder. On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 7:28 AM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 12:20:55 PM Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner < > > sergio.d.lerner at gmail.com> wrote: > > > You can find it here: > > > > https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2014/03/18/the-re-design-of-the-bitcoin-blo > > > ck-header/ > > > > > > Basically, the idea is to put in the first 64 bytes a 4 byte hash of > the > > > second 64-byte chunk. That design also allows increased nonce space in > > > the first 64 bytes. > > > > My mistake here. I didn't recalled correctly my own idea. The idea is to > > include in the second 64-byte chunk a 4-byte hash of the first chunk, not > > the opposite. > > What if we XOR bytes 64..76 with the first 12 bytes of the SHA2 midstate? > Would that work? > > Luke > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160511/499e1347/attachment.html>