Why bitcoin isn't going to make it: The National Security Agency

[The Fool]

They created SHA256 and they likely have a hold on ECDSA. Historically, they have had a hold on cryptography by over 20 years in future technology. They usurp almost all cryptography talent and beyond before the private sector can even touch it. My gut tells me the NSA already has exploits into all the technologies bitcoin utilizes. I think we're fucked for now. Cryptocurrency may not die as an idea but bitcoin may fall before it can truly succeed.

In order for cryptocurrency to work we need a thriving, free civilization with no hegemony that usurps most R&D and capital. We need the latest and greatest cryptography and we just don't have it.

Bitcoin as it stands may just turn into a fringe money laundering operation for the CIA and NSA before it no longer serves its purpose.

[Lethn]

They could only take over Bitcoin if it was owned by one person, but the code is open source and distributed everywhere, Bitcoin supporters already won long term ages ago and they can't do anything about it.

[notig]

I'm skeptical of that. I think we should fear what the government will do but them outsmarting us is not the method I was actually fearing.

[The Fool]

They could only take over Bitcoin if it was owned by one person, but the code is open source and distributed everywhere, Bitcoin supporters already won long term ages ago and they can't do anything about it.

I don't think you understand cryptography. If both SHA256 and ECSDA are compromised, funds can be shifted around at will irregardless of the true owners. All private keys would be open to anyone who knows the hack.

[The Fool]

I'm skeptical of that. I think we should fear what the government will do but them outsmarting us is not the method I was actually fearing.

It's not even actual intellect these agencies are utilizing: It's control over the world's resources and information. They take. They do not usually create. They see a man with potential, they see his ideas and they snatch him before he can work for anyone else using limitless government funding.

[Lethn]

I don't understand cryptography lol but I understand open source, what's to stop someone from making something entirely new that NSA can't touch? While I can understand the fear I am also very skeptical because a lot of the people who work in government are, lets face it, old white people who couldn't open up a word document without any help.

Never underestimate the intellectual capacity of an angry child with an internet connection and a keyboard.

[Akka]

I don't think you understand cryptography. If both SHA256 and ECSDA are compromised, funds can be shifted around at will irregardless of the true owners. All private keys would be open to anyone who knows the hack.

A cryptographic method usually doesn't get compromised they way that you can just create the private key by knowing the public key. Maybe at some point there will be some algorithms that greatly reduce the possibility for a private key if you now the public one. Even if someone finds such a solution that would decrease the possibility for the private key by the factor 1,000,000 that would still mean the average "cracking" would still need a few thousand (million?) years. Plenty of Time to switch to a new solution.

[The Fool]

I don't think you understand cryptography. If both SHA256 and ECSDA are compromised, funds can be shifted around at will irregardless of the true owners. All private keys would be open to anyone who knows the hack.

A cryptographic method usually doesn't get compromised they way that you can just create the private key by knowing the public key. Maybe at some point there will be some algorithms that greatly reduce the possibility for a private key if you now the public one. Even if someone finds such a solution that would decrease the possibility for the private key by the factor 1,000,000 that would still mean the average "cracking" would still need a few thousand (million?) years. Plenty of Time to switch to a new solution.

Well, I'm implying it may already be compromised by the enormous amount of resources the NSA has in talent, hardware and other technology. I am not even talking strictly about bruteforce but rather inherent flaws that have always existed.

Anyways, we should look at rejected algorithims when it comes to new solutions. The NIST got really nervous about anything "too exceptional" in their competition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIST_hash_function_competition#Entrants

[Dayofswords]

They could only take over Bitcoin if it was owned by one person, but the code is open source and distributed everywhere, Bitcoin supporters already won long term ages ago and they can't do anything about it.

I don't think you understand cryptography.

I dont think you do either. Unless NSA has figured something no one else in the world has, then SHA2 is reasonably safe

Even then, this has been considered and bitcoin can move to another crypto https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses#Breaking_the_cryptography  satoshi himself mentioned it could be done, but he did say that 3 years ago.

[The Fool]

They could only take over Bitcoin if it was owned by one person, but the code is open source and distributed everywhere, Bitcoin supporters already won long term ages ago and they can't do anything about it.

I don't think you understand cryptography.

Unless NSA has figured something no one else in the world has, then SHA2 is reasonably safe

Exactly what I am implying and it isn't unreasonable either considering their budget is classified and their offices clog traffic considerably.

[Endgame]

If the NSA or anybody else had a backdoor built into bitcoin's crypto don't you think they would have used it by now to clean out some addresses?

[Grinder]

It is pretty safe to assume that NSA has some really smart people working for them, and that they may very well know more than the public about the strengths and weaknesses of these algorithms. For instance they and IBM created the DES standard in a very specific way in the seventies, and it was only in the late eighties that it was discovered publicly that this was to make it more resistant to differential cryptanalysis.

[ciphermonk]

Guys, don't get me wrong, but I'm tired of reading these posts.

Please take a cryptography class for example @ http://coursera.org so you can post with some perspective on the matter.

[iCEBREAKER]

*Put on tinfoil hat*

Any first world government may carry out a 51% attack.  NSA/KGB/MI5 have been fabbing their own chips for decades.

Plus they have alien tech from Roswell that makes Avalon look like wind-up toys.

Bitcoin is just a massive decentralized honey pot/sting operation.

/Fox Mulder

 

[cbeast]

There is no reason for any patriot to hate Bitcoin. It is no more anti-government than gold. In fact, Bitcoin can be minted in the same way as gold, figuratively speaking. Governments do not print gold, they get it the same way everyone else does. The US Constitution gives the government the right to mint coins and there is nothing stopping them from creating official coins out of Bitcoins through whitelisting addresses, creating Casascius style coins, or some other scheme. In fact, all alphabet agencies staffed with educated patriots should recognize that Bitcoin's one unique property is to promote liberty.

[Herodes]

The truth is out there.
/Fox Mulder

[The Fool]

For instance they and IBM created the DES standard in a very specific way in the seventies, and it was only in the late eighties that it was discovered publicly that this was to make it more resistant to differential cryptanalysis.

This.

[Sukrim]

On the other hand if you have the means to break SHA256(SHA256)) (=mining) and ECDSA (=Bitcoin private keys), why waste that on Bitcoin?
Don't get me wrong, maybe Bitcoin becomes a big threat for the establishment in the future - but there are far more valuable targets.

Another thing to consider:
Not every great cryptographer is from the USA, there are other countries with smart people out there as well... of course NSA will be ahead a bit with cryptoanalysis (I read recently an interesting article about Bitcoin mining with SAT solvers) and breaking codes just because of the ressources they have - still that doesn't mean they can magically "break" mathematics. Current crypto is considered strong enough that it makes much more sense to attack the implementation (side channel attacks) than the actual algorithm. as bitcoin however only consists of data, not hardware they need to attack the mathematics behind ECDSA and SHA256. This doesn't require a huge budget, this requires brilliant people which can show up anywhere on the globe.

Lastly:
Even though a lot of crypto nowadays is public and 100% open source still only few people understand every detail behind and even fewer then really start questioning established truths or trying out if assumptions actually hold. I bet there are some algorithms out there that are considered quite secure but that have some flaws that are very well hidden and only surface after you start from scratch and test everything. Also there's a huge class of proprietary algorithms that are "secure by obscurity" and usually easily broken because they contain rookie mistakes.

[Gabi]

America is not the world, if there are flaws do you think the rest of the world would not discover them? When billions and billions and the whole economy is at stake?  Only a Fool would say that 

[debianlinux]

I'm skeptical of that. I think we should fear what the government will do but them outsmarting us is not the method I was actually fearing.

I am immediately skeptical of anyone whose arguments urge me to base my behavior on fear.