From: Steve Davis <steven.charles.davis@gmail•com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] SHA1 collisions make Git vulnerable to attakcs by third-parties, not just repo maintainers
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 06:04:28 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <208F93FE-B7C8-46BE-8E00-52DBD0F43415@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170225010122.GA10233@savin.petertodd.org>
> On Feb 24, 2017, at 7:01 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 05:49:36PM -0600, Steve Davis via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> If the 20 byte SHA1 is now considered insecure (with good reason), what about RIPEMD-160 which is the foundation of Bitcoin addresses?
>
> SHA1 is insecure because the SHA1 algorithm is insecure, not because 160bits isn't enough.
>
> AFAIK there aren't any known weaknesses in RIPEMD160,
…so far. I wonder how long that vacation will last?
> but it also hasn't been
> as closely studied as more common hash algorithms.
...but we can be sure that it will be, since the dollar value held in existing utxos continues to increase...
> That said, Bitcoin uses
> RIPEMD160(SHA256(msg)), which may make creating collisions harder if an attack
> is found than if it used RIPEMD160 alone.
Does that offer any greater protection? That’s not so clear to me as the outputs (at least for p2pkh) only verify the public key against the final 20 byte hash. Specifically, in the first (notional) case the challenge would be to find a private key that has a public key that hashes to the final hash. In the second (realistic) case, you merely need to add the sha256 hash into the problem, which doesn’t seem to me to increase the difficulty by any significant amount?
/s
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-02-25 12:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <mailman.22137.1487974823.31141.bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
2017-02-24 23:49 ` Steve Davis
2017-02-25 1:01 ` Peter Todd
2017-02-25 12:04 ` Steve Davis [this message]
2017-02-25 14:50 ` Leandro Coutinho
2017-02-25 16:10 ` Ethan Heilman
2017-02-25 17:45 ` Shin'ichiro Matsuo
2017-02-27 9:15 ` Henning Kopp
2017-02-25 18:19 ` Alice Wonder
2017-02-25 18:36 ` Ethan Heilman
2017-02-25 19:12 ` Peter Todd
2017-02-25 20:42 ` Watson Ladd
2017-02-25 20:57 ` Peter Todd
2017-02-25 20:53 ` Russell O'Connor
2017-02-25 21:04 ` Peter Todd
2017-02-25 21:21 ` Dave Scotese
2017-02-25 21:34 ` Steve Davis
2017-02-25 21:40 ` Peter Todd
2017-02-25 21:54 ` Steve Davis
2017-02-25 22:14 ` Pieter Wuille
2017-02-25 22:34 ` Ethan Heilman
2017-02-26 6:26 ` Steve Davis
2017-02-26 6:36 ` Pieter Wuille
2017-02-26 7:16 ` Steve Davis
[not found] ` <CAPg+sBirowtHqUT5GUJf9hmDEACKVX19HAon-rrz7GmO8OBsNg@mail.gmail.com>
2017-02-26 16:53 ` Steve Davis
2017-02-25 23:09 ` Leandro Coutinho
2017-02-23 18:14 Peter Todd
2017-02-23 21:28 ` Peter Todd
2017-02-23 23:57 ` Aymeric Vitte
2017-02-24 10:04 ` Tim Ruffing
2017-02-24 15:18 ` Aymeric Vitte
2017-02-24 16:30 ` Tim Ruffing
2017-02-24 17:29 ` Aymeric Vitte
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=208F93FE-B7C8-46BE-8E00-52DBD0F43415@gmail.com \
--to=steven.charles.davis@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=pete@petertodd$(echo .)org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox