This becomes ridiculous. To discredit an algorithm it is enough to say that the authority behind it is discredited.
You have said one sentence on which we agree, and one on which we don't.
I do not give a crap who developed a sort algorithm, because I can tell when things are sorted correctly and I can prove that the algorithm does sort things correctly in every case.
And hashing, given the level of mathematical sophistication and effort applied by people who are NOT controlled by any particular agency, is not very different from sorting in this regard.
This topic is getting old but again, here is an example of why the promoter matters.
md5 was listed as a secure cryptographic hashing algorithm, one of only two listed as such, until very recently on Wikipedia.
As you probably know the NSA had cracked it enough to be able to make fake security certificates with it. Obviously it was in their interest to continue the charade of promoting it as secure.
We would not know how broken it is except that some Iranian computer place that was targeted figured it out.
After it was announced that md5 was not use able, i.e. after the Iraniasns found the flame malware, there was a sloppy rush to make it look like md5 had been discredited much earlier. In fact a few cautions had gone out about it but it was promoted and used as secure cryptographic hashing until flame.
Something is not quite right with using sha in hi coin. The arguing is getting old though. I have my opinion based on what I have read and I have posted plenty of links on the various threads.
The NSA is not omnipotent.
They have a lot of resources, true, but they are a government bureaucracy just like any other and not notably better at utilizing their resources than any other bureaucracy.
The reason we know the NSA has put backdoors in algorithms in the past is because they got caught doing it.
Anything underhanded the NSA can do to a public crypto spec, others can discover when they are looking for it.
Right now, a lot of people are looking.
Of course they are only people, but they are people intoxicated with bureaucratic values and emboldened by billions of dollars plus all the false weight of pretending to be in charge of a nation's security.
It seems likely that they would use flaws that cater to their resources, e.g. huge supercomputers, and which most researchers would not be able to emulate, if that's the right word.
1. Lots of people (including myself) gave reasons why the current consensus is that bitcoin is not 'cracked' by the NSA but whoever doesn't agree with you is a shill for the NSA.
2. You list 'articles' to defend your point. None of these are of any reputable source. I challenge you to provide a single peer reviewed research paper.
3. You say that bitcoin shouldn't use a hashing algo created by the NSA but don't have any better alternative.
Essentially, it is pointless to discuss with you.
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.
