Well SHA256 is not provably secure. But besides that a brute force attack on it is not versatile.
A provably secure hashing algorithm just has the advantage that it is as difficult to break as solving some hard mathematical problem. That does not mean that SHA256 is inferior to provably secure methods but it could be.
But then again the strongest rebuttal of the argument is that if SHA256 were to be broken the stakes for the current world are much higher than just bitcoin...
Topic: "All cryptography is breakable" criticism - page 5. (Read 7617 times)
I've recently been challenged with this "criticism", "all cryptography is breakable, it's just a matter of time", and thus concluding that bitcoin is not safe.
I'm pretty confident that the odds of a fatal flaw in algorithms so established like ECDSA or SHA-256 are so tiny that we should not even bother.
I wonder though if somebody here has some data that could help me hold such claim.
For example, what was the worst case of "broken cryptographic algorithm"? By "worst" I mean which took the longest to happen and/or affected the largest number of people who were already trusting the algorithm.
Has any fatal flaw ever been found in an algorithm as old (at the time the flaw was discovered, of course) as ECDSA for example? It's a bit clear to me that the longer an algorithm resists to professional scrutiny, the less likely it is to have a flaw. But having some numbers would probably help.
Thanks!
I'm pretty confident that the odds of a fatal flaw in algorithms so established like ECDSA or SHA-256 are so tiny that we should not even bother.
I wonder though if somebody here has some data that could help me hold such claim.
For example, what was the worst case of "broken cryptographic algorithm"? By "worst" I mean which took the longest to happen and/or affected the largest number of people who were already trusting the algorithm.
Has any fatal flaw ever been found in an algorithm as old (at the time the flaw was discovered, of course) as ECDSA for example? It's a bit clear to me that the longer an algorithm resists to professional scrutiny, the less likely it is to have a flaw. But having some numbers would probably help.
Thanks!
Jump to: