I'm thinking about my next enhancement.  Any suggestions/requests?

donations to 17MCh7jJ4dHU5iAfLPv2t8hdjGDDzn95DK

Yes, but I've gone considerably further now.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mOTrqckdetCoRxY5QkVcyQ7Z0gcYIH-Dc0tu7t9f7tw now works.  It computes the SHA-256 hash of the null string or a string of up to 55 printable ASCII characters.  It does so from scratch, so to speak; it calculates the 2 set of constants.  All steps are fully revealed demonstrating the intricate details of the algorithm.

Ken Shirriff was my inspiration.  http://www.righto.com/2014/09/mining-bitcoin-with-pencil-and-paper.html

The referenced paper is obviously a public attack, so to speak.  One wonders what the state of the art is non-publicly.   I suppose the paper might be as good as it gets at this point.

One wonders if the Bitcoin reference implementation is built upon one of the SHS validated http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/STM/cavp/documents/shs/shaval.htm SHA-256 implementations.

Ah, SHA-256 is 64 rounds, whereas the paper in question talks about of an attack at 45 rounds.  I gather it is not just a matter of working harder the same way to get to 46 or more rounds but rather novel enhancements are required if it is even possible.

In my opinion it is a very good thing to have the most hashing power up and running at all times possible to secure the network against hostile attacks.  This is a "tax" well worth paying.  I'd go so far as to say I'd support the idea of having government sponsored hashing power online rather than paying for it by trying to increase the debasing of the Bitcoin value.

http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/epr/09v15n1/0907silb.pdf documents an amazing thing back in 1933.  People listen to President Roosevelt and actually went to make deposits after the bank holiday.  Those days are gone, right?  Nothing like that could happen again.

Can funding government operations via debasing the national currency as opposed to taxes, etc., actually be a sustainable approach?  Is inflation *always* the consequence eventually?

Old adage; buy the rumor, sell the news.

That's opt-in; I want some technique for rejecting blocks from pools that are too large.

How can pools be reliably inhibited from growing too large?

Although the chances are low and I don't actually suspect them of this, how would we prove it one way or the other?

Why in the world does anyone stick with Discus Fish?  Why don't they switch to GHash and save on the fees?

I suppose we could start by trying to prove collusion http://guide.iacrc.org/elements-of-proof-of-collusive-practices/.

Can there be a proof of non-collusion?

How do we know that Ghash.io and Discus Fish are not controlled be the same user(s)?

Could they be hiding hash power in Discus Fish?

Um, does participating in one pool over another provide superior benefits?

Couldn't the Ghash.io folks just chop their pool into two 20% pieces or better yet 10 4% pieces and avoid the wrath of the community?

Could two or more pools secretly collude to achieve 51%?

Hmm, our month comes from the time it takes for the Moon to orbit the Earth.  The Moon's orbit has been changing over time.  A very long time ago the Moon would have taken 13 days (which isn't fixed length either) to orbit the Earth (long before there were any people to count them) http://lasp.colorado.edu/life/GEOL5835/Moon_presentation_19Sept.pdf.

Of all of the known moons of our solar system http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Display=Moons if we look at the orbital periods http://www.windows2universe.org/our_solar_system/moons_table.html, Oberon http://www.windows2universe.org/uranus/moons/oberon.html has an orbital period closest to 13 Earth days.  So, I suppose someone on Uranus *might* choose a month to be 13 Earth days based on Oberon's orbit but it would be inconsistent since the Uranus day is only 17 hours long.  Oberon is also not the largest moon but it's close enough in size to Titania to be excused.

On the other hand, since Mercury take almost 88 days to orbit the Sun http://www.astronomynotes.com/tables/tablesb.htm, an asteroid would have to orbit much closer to the Sun than Mercury in order to orbit in just 13 days but even then no one would likely call that a month.