Topic: Anti ASIC/GPU/FPGA POW-algorithm. New (2019). - page 3. (Read 1218 times)

If its to make a full coin, i can get into this, but also it needs block explorer, wallet etc and existing software for this will probably need to be modified as well to take in account the block signature format.

Im not sure how difficult it can be To adapt all the bitcore code for this algorithm, as blocks are also indexed with the block header hash, it probably needs changes in many places but i can look into this. Already got familliar with some versions of bitcore.

Sha256 has very high entropy, zero regression or anything it has non linear components to cascade and amplify all the source entropy capped with a mod.

I understand the problem with finding working keys as the number of rounds has to be found by brute force.

I still put my number crunching neurons at work on this one to find simple solution.

Sbox is just essentially a table look up, its not going to use lot of cpu power, but not sure if this can keep the cyclic property with the cypher implementation, but i believe similar technique can be used to increase entropy. With the sparx concept of large weak sbox it mean you can change it yourself and any weak sbox is supposed to keep the non linearity.

But adding entropy to break linear regression ( linear as in linear system) is not necessarily complex or it doesnt need lot of cpu power, the problem is to keep it cyclic, otherwise simple algorithm can works well.

With the few research i did so far, it doesnt seem that non linear function can be cyclic, because determined cycle period means its not non linear. Maybe its possible to find such non linear function that has at least bounded cycle period but didnt find this so far.

Monsieur, in SHA256 hashing, which is used in Bitcoin, there is only ONE encryption operation, similar to the one I use in RBF. She is coming - at the very end. ONLY ONE!!! And ANYONE has not been able to crack this algorithm even despite the fact that it has an obvious built-in backdoor.
My algorithm uses thousands of such operations, and besides, they are all triple. You can also use quadruples, although this will not change anything. For example, rotate_right ^ rotate_left ^ shift_right ^ shift_left ... The difficulty level will be the same.
Perhaps you may ask why the level of difficulty when using the quadruple operation will be the same. I explain ... When the complexity level of the triple operation is greater than (the number of all atoms in the universe) ** 2 (to the second degree), then the difference between the triple operation and the quadruple operation, in which the level of complexity will be equal to (the number of all atoms in the universe) ** 3 (to the third degree), then for any cracker this will not change anything. That one, that the other - for hacking it is equally IMPOSSIBLE to hack.
HOWEVER, this will greatly complicate the task for us! Because we, as developers, need to find all the working keys, and this is a very difficult computational task. Especially because it cannot be parallelized. If we add complexity to this algorithm, then it will take us more time to search for working keys. Do you understand what I'm talking about? Not all key sets provide direct ring functions. Many key sets provide deferred ring functions and cannot be used as POWs. Our task is to find working keys and add them to the array of keys so that there are as many of them as possible (not 4, as I use in my videos for simplicity).
Therefore, your proposal to make even more complex what is IMPOSSIBLE difficult is meaningless. Absolutely.
If this idea really captivated you, then better let’s think about how to implement it. We can organize a project and create a new cryptocurrency, which will be for all people in the world. But to do this, we need funding. At least a little. I don’t know how much you need, but I need $ 500 per month so that I can work on the project. Otherwise, labor emigration to another country awaits me. I can not survive in my state. There is almost nothing here. Only one war and political butts of different politicians.
Let's just join forces and think about how to do it. Moreover, I have other solutions for Bitcoin. For example, I have a simple and elegant algorithm that allows me to solve the problem of the “BIG” blockchain, which is growing very quickly in any cryptocurrency. And things like that. If we implement them all in New Bitcoin, then this will be real Crypto_2.0.
Think - what can we do? This will be the best contribution of your precious time, I assure you.
And with this algorithm, everything is absolutely transparent and obvious. The XOR operation is one-way. That is - it is not reversible if you do not have starting numbers. Everything. There is nothing more to think about. No “weak solutions” can be found here. There is none of them.

I need think this more, but its possible there is still hidden property on the last numbers that are going to be used for the signature, as its only one step away from the original, and lot of the entropy has been removed at this point.

There are way to scramble it more, but need to keep the cyclic property as well, which is the more difficult part.

Maybe using something like onion cypher, and each round encrypt the last exploiting same property of bit rotation with certain algorithm its possible it will still cycle back. And then you will have something with a strong entropy.

Im looking into simple cypher like this

https://www.cryptolux.org/index.php/SPARX


SPARX is a family of ARX-based 64- and 128-bit block ciphers. Only addition modulo 216, 16-bit XOR and 16-bit rotations are needed to implement any version. SPARX-n/k denotes the version encrypting an n-bit block with a k-bit key.

The SPARX ciphers have been designed according to the Long Trail Strategy put forward by its authors in the same paper. It can be seen as a counterpart of the Wide-Trail Strategy suitable for algorithms built using a large and weak S-Box rather than a small strong one. This method allows the designers to bound the differential and linear trial probabilities, unlike for all other ARX-based designs. Non-linearity is provided by SPECKEY, a 32-bit block cipher identical to SPECK-32except for its key addition. The linear layer is very different from that of, say, the AES as it consists simply in a linear Feistel round for all versions.

The designers claim that no attack using less than 2k operations exists against SPARX-n/k in neither the single-key nor in the related-key setting. They also faithfully declare that they have not hidden any weakness in these ciphers. SPARX is free for use and its source code is available in the public domain (it can be obtained below).

It doesnt need something very strong, just to resist 10 minutes brute force attacks, even using all the cpu power of the world on the brute force, even 64bits of "true entropy" would be enough from a 256bits space it mean even if its 75% broken its still ok for this purpose.


I will rename the files to remove confusion between rbf & hash

Entropy of numbers in my algorithm (RBF).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3D1mgMJvuw&feature=youtu.be

Video response.
And you confused the names a little. My ring function algorithm is called RBF. Mystigue is the name of my hash algorithm. These are different algorithms. I just use them in my POW code both.

Even if there is large part of the number that are eliminated from the brute force, it can still be ok because the attack time is short, essentially the target time between blocks, so in the 10minutes for bitcoin but would still need something a bit stronger.

Ring Bit Function. 3 part.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-7NmuZXbdU&feature=youtu.be
An explanation of the new POW algorithm, which I call the Ring Bit Function (RBF), with C ++ code examples. In this part we will masking our chain of RBF rings.


I have long solved this problem. The answer in this video ...

I will do some testing to check the sequence you get from numbers like 0x00010000 or such, number with low entropy, and put that in regression test or check the distribution. If it can find a regression it mean you can compute round N in a single Step. It wouldnt surprise me that with certain numbers some regression can be found on the sequence, if not then good

Roughly speaking, if the number can be compressed a lot, it mean the "entropy" is low and the security would be related to how much you can compress it.

If you have only zero, it can be compressed to just 0 ans it doesnt matter if you have 256 zeroes or one.

The actual size of the key when using Smart brute force is related to the entropy of the key.

If you have 255 zero and 1 one in a 256 bits key it mean the brute force is not on 2^256. And it mean the sequence will be predictible and the brute force will only need small.number of test to find the signature.

In any case it shouldnt be too hard to strengthen it just to avoid degenrate number that lead to predictible sequence.

What make the algorithm hard to reverse is the same principle than cypher algorithm which still can have some weakness in the simple form ( without sbox or any other thing), especially with low entropy input.

With a hash normally it give good entropy, but after many rings the signature could loose entropy and the rings become easy to predict.

But maybe it doesnt matter too much but would need to be sure and not waiting for an attack to show its broken

I just don’t understand what you’re talking about ... Really. What are the weak numbers? How do you want to crack them? Take any of the small rings already generated by me (in the pictures) and try to crack it in any way known to you. If you succeed - I will start to think about what to do with it. And now I think that you do not understand what you say, because you rely on experience that cannot be compared with this case.
Show in practice what you mean by weak rings and the possibilities of their direct attacks.

Sbox are very common in many algorithm like this but yeah if you pick one from existing algorithm from service there can always be a backdoor and they are hard to design properly, maybe its possible to find simple one Who can fit for this. But its just in case if there can be too much weak numbers on long ring maybe it could improve, especially that the brute force can be made with // cores.

But the old ones like gost/des they already have been studied many times and their inner working is well known now.

The blowfish they can generate sbox from the data directly. But same never can be 100% sure with already made algorithm.

Maybe even simple huffman coding could remove some problems in case there is lot of zero or repetitive bit sequence. To make the number "more compact" so to speak. Even maybe only as a test like if the number can be easily compressed with huffman it mean if has low entropy and it should be changed.

Ok Now it is clear. If I were you, I would forget forever about any cryptographic algorithms that the special services created and adopted the government to standard. I will not use what most likely has a built-in backdoor. I have my own simple, understandable and obviously provable algorithms for encryption, keys and everything that is needed. For them I will be calm.

S box they are like simple substitution tables, like look up table that make sequence less repetitive, you can find this in all advanced block cypher ( des,gost etc)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-box


https://who.paris.inria.fr/Leo.Perrin/pi.html

The cryptographic properties of the S-box play a crucial role in the security of the algorithm because they are the only source of non-linearity. They are also at the center of the security arguments given by algorithm designers. In fact, designers are expected to explain how the S-box they used was designed and why they chose the structure their S-box has. For example, the AES has an S-box which is based on the multiplicative inverse in the finite field . This choice is motivated by the fact that both the linearity and the differential uniformity 1 of this permutation are the lowest known to be possible.

Its essentially to improve security when data can be predictible. Like if there is a sequence of zero or repetitive it will change it to something else less predictible which can deter certain analysis.

Even a simple compression algorithm could reduce "blanks" or repetitive sequence that can exploited but on short keys like its not very efficient, i think an s box would be more efficient.

Im not sure if its going to be very efficient for this, but could be improve it i guess. Normally its supposed to make bit operation like this more efficient/less predictible.

I know many programming language ( c c++ Java js php assembler).

I dont have strong background in cryptography but i study maths and been into cracking groups before so i know the basics i can never resist when i see numbers grid like this to make sense of them

The attack it can be given a start num and the keys, the possible signatures after X rounds could be reduced and brute forced. Even on good algorithm its possible to divide key size, with a simple algo like it on weak numbers its possible attacks can exists. But need to see if it take more time to brute force than compute, as in the case its "Real time" race, so i dont think there is huge risk.

Not sure how i can help but the idea is interesting

IadixDev, I'm sorry, but I don’t understand what kind of "s boxes" you are talking about and how you are going to attack weak rings in general.
Today I will post a video in which I will show an intermediate masking between the rings, and you can describe the algorithm with examples - how you are going to get the “weak ring” and how you want to attack it. And most importantly - what will it give you ...
Ok?

In fact, I have already matured the concept of this project. I want to restart Bitcoin, but with corrections of its main shortcomings. You already see one of these algorithms. The second will be about fixing the BIG blockchain. Additionally, along the way, we will solve the problem of anonymity.
So it’s better to write - can you participate in the development and on what conditions ... what programming languages ​​do you know? I see you have experience in encryption algorithms and other cryptography ... If you want, you can join and do it together. You will analyze my algorithms for vulnerabilities .

Ha yes its true its hashed before, and its what i was thinking on hundreds of rings even if there is a weaker number it shouldnt matter too much. An s box doesnt cost a lot either if it can improve the security, if a very long ring would happen with a weak number its still a bit of waste, but i dont think its a big problem.

But need to see the brute force attack can be made with // units, so very weak rings could still be vulnerable.

Oh, I understand what you're talking about, but this is a vain concern. All input data will be hashed, therefore, no “weak” numbers will be input to the algorithm. In addition, even one weak ring out of 1000 (for example) can in no way affect the result of the entire chain of rings.

Anyway even if there is a problem with that, normally things like  s-boxes can solve it easily. With a good s box worked on the input number, you could as well use 0 or such as input number and it would still be safer.

Maybe im wrong To think this, but if there is let say only 1 bit set in the start number even if Its a big number the sequence with bit operations are going To be more predictible.

In the simple text cypher algorithm, if both the key and the data are "weak" it can be exploited by certain attacks, in the case as the number is both the data and the key, if the number is "weak" there can be some attack to predict the sequence.

Its why adding some salt/initilization vector or an sbox rolled over the sequence of signature at each block could improve that, and wouldnt complexify the algorthm too much, but maybe its not necessary.

Normally its supposed to make block cypher algorithm safer, as the algorithm use the same principle, it would not cost much and make it safer, but not 100% sure

Maybe its not necessary because the cost of the attack is superior than the pow cost, so its more when cracking encryption when the attack time can be long, and its to narrow the possible numbers on brute force attack. But maybe even with weak number and analysis the brute force will be higher than the computation.

No, there is no such way. This is mathematically impossible. This number has to be calculated by brute force for each key combination.


Right...


This is absolutely impossible! With 256 bits, the number of possible combinations is huge. This decimal number is 10^78 (10**78 - cтeпeнь чиcлa), approximately equal to the number of atoms in the universe. Now this number needs to be multiplied by the number of possible key combinations that will be used for calculations. This is only for a variation of one ring. To this we need to add the same number of possible masks with which we will mask the rings. Now think - what is the likelihood that at least once during the calculations the same combination (starting number + key + mask) will occur? In which computer will you be able to remember all the options encountered? How long will it take you each time to search for similar options in this computer?

It's impossible. This is called transcomputing operations ...

There should be a way to calculate the number of cycle needed for a certain combination of "keys" ( the number used in the ror/rol ) no ?

In any case for a given combination of keys the amount of work is determined.

The way i see it, it works like simple cypher algorithm, like the simplest cypher is only xoring a number with the key to encrypt and xoring it again to decrypt, here its like using the number itself as a key with bit rotation that cancel itself out after a certain number of iterations because rotation is cyclic.

So its why i tend to think its not easy to reverse, even if maybe certain numbers are going to be weaker than others, but maybe a "salting" or initialisation vector can be used on the start num to make it more random. Otherwise it can have same problem than plaintext cypher if the text and key are too repetitive, it can make the algorithm easier to crack, its possible with certain degenerate numbers the sequence will be more predictible, but in the average it shouldnt matter to much.

But its Nice idea, it looks like Sparta approach, when out numbered in the number of // core force the fight on one vs one

Ring Bit Function. 2 part.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ir9Ptfg0Nbg&feature=youtu.be
In this part we make a chain of RBF rings.


Yes, you are right - I did not immediately realize this. But I have a lot of work, so I try to explain as much as I can. Perhaps the video will be more clear. Moreover, the function is extremely simple ...


Here I do not quite understand what you were talking about. Indeed, for each ring, the amount of work is known in advance. However, we can change the complexity of the calculations, making the rings larger, as well as complicating the task. In addition, the most important thing is that we cannot predict in advance how much work is needed to calculate the signature. That is - how long will the chain of rings be.
In this sense, everything works exactly the same as with the usual SHA256 algorithm.


Thank you...

im just waiting for this coin to release, good luck with your funding

If i may offer suggestion in the way you present it because its confusing.

The thing with the ring diagram is you want to show two things in the same time.

There is the ring as the total work to do to complete the ring, and the repartition of the numbers, but the ring on the diagram show the total amount of work to do, not the total space of possible 256 bits numbers. Each round still advance linearly into the ring of total work to do even if the number distribution along the steps is not linear.

As far as i can tell, function like xor/ror are the bread and butter of most simple cypher cryptographic algorithm, so i would think it cannot be easily simulated with linear function, BUT the amount of work to do for a particular ring is still linear so the progression on the ring that represent the amount of work to do should still be linear

Well its just my 2 cents to make it more clear, i can try to make some diagram to explain better