Topic: Has the NSA already broken bitcoin? - page 2. (Read 50483 times)

Nice article. Not very likely, but still possible.

no ,

some believe that since the nsa invented sha 2 (secure hash algorithm 2) and then stopped using it , that means well it must be cracked like an egg or they would not have changed to sha 3


The nsa plans for decades in advance.

I think that when sha 1 had some issues and some very older documents were decrypted they said well we know sha 2 is rock solid now but what about 20-40 years from now.........

Even there, you are stretching it..... a working quantum computer would be required to crack bitcoin , I would not plan on seeing that anytime soon.

Yes there have been great advancements in quantum computing, making gates, qbits, I could go on and on......

But I think you will see a quantum computer that can operate as a universe simulator before you see one designed that could break bitcion.

Ever hear of the idea that there is a 99.9 percent chance we are all living in a 'virtual reality' right now ?

If not I suggest you use your imagination on that , not worrying that sha 2 can be backdoored, 

There are so many protections in bitcoin the average person has no idea what most of them even are.

Honestly

Here is the link (bit off topic but what the person who started this thread needs for therapy and peace of mind)

After reading this you may conclude you don't need anything since you are living in a simulated holographic projection and forget all about bitcoin.

Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation  24 page pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.1847v2.pdf

This post of yours has mostly intelligent opinions, aside from the sly ad hominem. You post a quote then say you can't disagree with it. Then you sum up saying my posted are illogical, but you don't give examples. Knowing that I will ask for examples, you say you will use the ignore button. That kind of slippery response pretty much sums up the sha defense.

My summation of the response is in the quote above.

1) The NSA has a history of promoting broken crypto so they can spy.
2) Anyone in a 3rd world country that has been ravaged by drones recently, or by death squads and para groups before that, will justifiably scratch their head when they learn that the bitcoin algorithm was developed by a U.S. intelligence agency.
3) It would be a simple matter to correct this huge problem simply by, as many other coins have, using a non NSA algo. It is certainly true that the NSA could secretly make some private algo under another organization. And that stealth threat would certainly encourage the study by individuals of potential shortcuts in cryptographic math.

I don't disagree with you on this. You have said it a million times. If you haven't noticed no one defends the NSA on this.

Instead of repeating the same thing over and over because you think that we are not listening to you, maybe you should try listening to what other people say.

I'll try to summarize.
- NSA works on crypto. They produce algos and make recommendations.
- We don't know the extend of their knowledge. They have people working on every popular encryption.
- Cryptographers dislike "security by obscurity". They believe that an encryption should be judged by its own merits.
- They studied SHA and estimated that its security was sufficient.
- They think that using it in bitcoin is safe under the current parameters

What they don't say:
- It will never be broken. Never is a long time. But they estimate that it will be safe for many years.
- It is the best algo because other factors participate (speed, memory usage, existing hardware, etc.)

By the way, discrediting the NSA is nearly as bad as giving them credit. If we followed your blind recommendation, we would be choosing another algo because it's not published by the NSA.
Well, the NSA can easily publish under a fake name.

Anyway, I'm sure I won't change your views. Every post you make gets more illogical. So the ignore button is my best defense against this barrage of insanity.

no-ice-please definitely nsa plant counter-psyche trolling ... just-shut-up-already and go-away-please, thnx.

My full comment to hhanh00 was
**
"Ha ha, you want a peer reviewed article that basically says "since the NSA has promoted broken crypto in the past it might be wise to not use their in house algorithm's. Basic common sense does not need an article. Can you produce a peer reviewed article that says a person should ignore the NSA's history of cheating on crypto?

Many times I've said I'm not a cryptographer and am not able to recommend an algorithm. Quite a few coins though have managed to find non government algorithms."

**

To which you replied with a partial quote and an analogy

Your analogy is poor on several levels. If you really need help figuring out why, please start a new thread.

You never pointed out it was a false analogy. And, if you did, you need to say WHY it is a false analogy.

You used a false analogy.

I pointed it out.

So you copy and paste a definition of analogy?

In this case the NSA is not interested in gaining trust by the people, but to communicate secure and at the same time be able to read the communications of all the others. This can't be gained through the release of an unbreakable code. Or if it was released it was not relevant anymore. In this case, because access is gained through hardware backdoors, encryption doesn't matter anymore.



edit: This is all quite offtopic, because I don't think, that the NSA has "broken" Bitcoin anyway.

Wow.  This is like some weird psy-op where someone comes up with completely nonsense accusations against the NSA solely to get people like me to defend it - because maybe if I get used to defending it from really stupid accusations I'll consider defending it against accusations that are, uh, accurate?  Or anyway plausible?  You sure you're not drawing a government paycheck for this silliness?  It'd be a heck of a sweet job if you can get it.

Dude, it ain't gonna work.  They are what they are and they do what they do.  They have promoted both unsound and sound crypto in the past.  You handle that by completely ignoring their recommendations.  You have to judge the crypto on its merits. 

Bzzzt, wrong.  This is Kerckhoff's principle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerckhoffs%27s_principle Auguste Kerckhoff got this one before there even WERE computers. 

If you want something that's secure and you want to get people to trust it, you want it out where everybody can see it and check for themselves that it's secure. 

And history has borne this out.  Virtually everybody who comes up with a "proprietary" crypto primitive that they don't reveal, has come up with one that gets ripped to shreds in short order when push comes to shove.

This thread is proof that no, they don't agree.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy

A person does not have to make value judgments, "NSA is evil" as you put it, to observe that the NSA has a history of promoting untrustworthy algorithms.


The NSA is not a person, so it's not ad hominem, and most people would agree that if an agency, it's employees, repeatedly push crypto that they have broken, then they are discredited.

Yes, the earth revolves around the sun. That has nothing to do with this issue. It's like saying "1+1=2 therefore we were justified in invading Iraq".


Saying cryptography is important for any security is like saying a gun is important for security. You have to look at the person behind the gun to decide whether they do anything good. Looking at the actions of the NSA over the last 30+ years, they have not been helpful to America's security.

You seem to be playing semantic games with your statement "sha isn't even an encryption scheme".

----

The supporters of sha in bitcoin are like mafia followers.

If some guy in Atlantic City has a business, he looks through the yellow pages and finds a garbage company to empty his dumpster. He calls around and gets the best price then signs up. A few days later some guys stop by and say "Hey, Fat Tony has a garbage company and he would like your business. Sure he charges a little more but he is here for the community. He is here to help us."

When John Gotti used to get charged with various things the people in his neighborhood would have protest marches claiming he was being persecuted. Did they really do this because he was such an integral part of the neighborhood, and did so much supposed good for the community? Or were they feces licking lapdogs pandering to some mafia scumbag?

The NSA promotes bad crypto.

They have done it again and again and again.

If you want to pretend that something else is the truth then pretend.

Indeed, it's so simple that Bitcoin can be mined manually:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3dqhixzGVo

So basically, it's all a problem of not being able to bruteforce. And they will never be able to bruteforce it, it's a non issue.

Actually, the tricky thing is: there are no measurements that can confirm Earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa. The reason we believe it is because there's a relatively simple mathematical model (including other stars and other planets) in which Earth revolves around the sun. Attempts to form a mathematical model with Earth at the center were always complicated and never fully successful. Ultimately this is the argument why the Earth revolves around the sun: the maths is simpler. Well, today most people believe it because people think you're an idiot otherwise, so it's more social pressure than mathematical simplicity. So in the end you're right: it's mind control.

The maths of SHA256 is simple as well. It's an avalanche of simplicity.

What if your senses are correct and heliocentrism is part of an ancient mind control conspiracy perpetrated upon the unwashed masses? You're taking 3rd party information that goes against common sense and turning it into a belief akin to religious faith without taking any measurements or making any observations yourself.

Well, the words that made you feel "attacked", were just used by you to "attack" me. Typical mirroring. Please don't ignore me, because I will feel soooo bad, when one of billions put me on ignore. Just joking, do whatever you want.

I've just learned that ignoring AGD also hides that Manson gif avatar. While this a little "meta"/offtopic, it still might be the most important information in this thread.

Well - I guess you feel the need to attack me personally. I don't really care about what you think. I'm just gonna put you on ignore. Judging from your post history, I won't miss much.
Incidentally, I know that cryptography is paramount for national security. People have been sacrificed to protect ciphers.
Still it would be good to have the facts right. SHA isn't even an encryption scheme!

It's not about inventing the useful technology, but about taking control as soon as it is classified as important for national security.