Has the NSA already broken bitcoin?

[Ingatqhvq]

Apparently they didn't broken bitcoin and bitcoin run very well.
Even if they can crack bitcoin and it can be updated quickly.

[1715060420]

1715060420

[1715060420]

1715060420

[1715060420]

1715060420

[AGD]

Mr. No-ice-please... 

You are certain that "SHA-256 will eventually be broken." 

I am certain that "eventually" in this case does not mean "within the next 50 years."

So ...  If you're under, say, 30, or otherwise have plans to survive well beyond what are currently considered as biological limitations for the basic human design by some means, I would like to make a bet with you. 

Got a couple BTC you're willing to commit to long-term escrow? 

Not a lot of spare coins to gamble with at the moment and long term for me is a few hours.

You are misinterpreting my complaint.
1)There are things that we know about the history of the NSA and the so called secure algorithms it promotes. They push bad crypto. Apparently that's their job. Fine.
2) It's not like we do not know what they do. It's like if you see a sign on a store that says "Rotten Horse Meat", and you buy what looks like beef. You get home and what do you think is going to be in the package?
3) The ethical issue is that the major use to which NSA intercepted information is put is not generally anything that benefits people in developing countries. In fact it is safe to say that if the NSA does own bitcoin effectively, in enough ways, it would be used to cancel political dissidents in repressive allied countries. A huge number of people have been killed in Latin america, Africa, Asia directly or indirectly by information the NSA provided to some pretty shitty governments. So a coin with an NSA algorithm should be a no go across the third world.

Is it broken? I don't know.
Will it be broken if it isn't,t? I don't know.
What do I know? See 1,2 and 3 above. It's enough for me.

Not only that. They also surpress "good" crypto. Check the story of Tron and his cryptophone back in 1997. Or the one about Barnaby Jack a few years ago. Aaron Swartz. Karl Koch and more unamed hackers, that died under questionable circumstances.

[Amph]

Apparently they didn't broken bitcoin and bitcoin run very well.
Even if they can crack bitcoin and it can be updated quickly.

not really quickly, it needs to be updated before that occur, because it will require a hard fork, if a case like this would ever happen(maybe with future quantum computer) it must be done early

[no-ice-please]

The risk to Bitcoin is not the NSA itself, but merely the RUMOR that NSA has cracked it...

That alone can undermine confidence.

So, if you feel the need to believe in a conspiracy, just tell yourself NSA is spreading a false rumor.

It's the cheapest way to undermine.

Perceptions are important but real issues are more so.

Real issues need real evidence.

This becomes ridiculous. To discredit an algorithm it is enough to say that the authority behind it is discredited.

Is the NSA a credible provider for trustworthy algorithms?

What is the truth?

I understand a lot of people will support NSA and other govt algorithms no matter what.

But what is the truth?

What is the actual truth?

Should a person trust an algorithm provided by the NSA?

https://mobile.twitter.com/csoghoian/status/375722670253686784

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=288545.0

https://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/2013/06/21/is-the-national-security-agency-behind-bitcoin/

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/what-do-the-latest-nsa-leaks-mean-for-bitcoin

http://cointelegraph.com/news/113985/are-we-owned-by-nsa-bitcoin-experts-discuss-how-to-evade-hardware-hacking

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/bitcoin-suspected-be-nsa-cia-project-1460439

http://www.opednews.com/populum/pagem.php?f=Connecting-the-Dots-betwee-by-David-Spring-Spying-131206-522.html

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=360.0

At this point I don't know what to say.

How much evidence do you want?

Why the pretending?

The final nail in sha256's coffin is http://archive.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2007/$

It was deleted but you can read it here https://web.archive.org/web/20141115041659/http://archive.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2007/$

[Cryddit]

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.

[J. J. Phillips]

To discredit an algorithm it is enough to say that the authority behind it is discredited.

This is incredibly stupidly wrong. It doesn't matter who creates/discovers an algorithm. What matters is what it does.

There should be an option on bitcointalk that just translates all the posts of "no-ice-please" and its alts to their shortest logical equivalent: False.

[justusranvier]

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.

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.

[hhanh00]

The risk to Bitcoin is not the NSA itself, but merely the RUMOR that NSA has cracked it...

That alone can undermine confidence.

So, if you feel the need to believe in a conspiracy, just tell yourself NSA is spreading a false rumor.

It's the cheapest way to undermine.

Perceptions are important but real issues are more so.

Real issues need real evidence.

This becomes ridiculous. To discredit an algorithm it is enough to say that the authority behind it is discredited.

Is the NSA a credible provider for trustworthy algorithms?

What is the truth?

I understand a lot of people will support NSA and other govt algorithms no matter what.

But what is the truth?

What is the actual truth?

Should a person trust an algorithm provided by the NSA?

https://mobile.twitter.com/csoghoian/status/375722670253686784

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=288545.0

https://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/2013/06/21/is-the-national-security-agency-behind-bitcoin/

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/what-do-the-latest-nsa-leaks-mean-for-bitcoin

http://cointelegraph.com/news/113985/are-we-owned-by-nsa-bitcoin-experts-discuss-how-to-evade-hardware-hacking

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/bitcoin-suspected-be-nsa-cia-project-1460439

http://www.opednews.com/populum/pagem.php?f=Connecting-the-Dots-betwee-by-David-Spring-Spying-131206-522.html

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=360.0

At this point I don't know what to say.

How much evidence do you want?

Why the pretending?

The final nail in sha256's coffin is http://archive.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2007/$

It was deleted but you can read it here https://web.archive.org/web/20141115041659/http://archive.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2007/$

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.

[no-ice-please]

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.

[Chef Ramsay]

EXCLUSIVE — RAND PAUL: WE’RE GOING TO TAKE NSA ALL THE WAY TO SUPREME COURT. AND WIN

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is celebrating the news a federal appeals court rejected President Barack Obama’s National Security Agency (NSA) data collection program on Thursday. In an exclusive interview with Breitbart News, Paul says he can’t wait for the Supreme Court to eventually rule it unconstitutional.

“We initiated a lawsuit on this over a year ago, and we are excited that the appeals court agrees with us,” Paul said.

Now, they’re saying it’s illegal in that Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act doesn’t authorize that—that the government has gone too far—I think that’s a good first step. We want the Supreme Court to eventually rule on whether this is Constitutional or not. Our main complaint, or one of our main arguments is, the Fourth Amendment says you have to name the person who you want to get a warrant—but not naming anyone and putting “Mr. Verizon” down and saying you can get the records of millions of people, you’re not writing a specific warrant.

You’re writing a generalized warrant. This is one of the things that we fought against that the British were doing to us. James Otis famously argued in court that the writs of assistance that the British were using were non-specific and didn’t use the person’s name—and so we wrote the Fourth Amendment to try to stop this kind of stuff. I guess it’s gratifying that the courts are beginning to recognize the problem. We are anticipating and eager for this to get to the Supreme Court.

More...http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/05/07/exclusive-rand-paul-were-going-to-take-nsa-all-the-way-to-supreme-court-and-win/

[hhanh00]

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.

No, I want a peer reviewed article that shows a viable attack on SHA rather than dubious news site that claims that since the NSA has made SHA, they must have a backdoor.
You keep repeating the same thing as if it makes it more valid: "NSA is evil - don't use anything they touch". The other coins that are using non gov algo are equally likely to be cracked, if not more. Just because the NSA hasn't invented an algo doesn't make stronger. If you can't understand that, continue your picket protest.

[R2D221]

This becomes ridiculous. To discredit an algorithm it is enough to say that the authority behind it is discredited.

This is the most literal example of an ad hominem fallacy.

Basic common sense does not need an article.

Actually, yes it does. If you just believe in your common sense, you're going to be wrong.

Common sense tells us that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Only through scientific observation we were able to determine that it's the other way round.

[AGD]

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.

No, I want a peer reviewed article that shows a viable attack on SHA rather than dubious news site that claims that since the NSA has made SHA, they must have a backdoor.
You keep repeating the same thing as if it makes it more valid: "NSA is evil - don't use anything they touch". The other coins that are using non gov algo are equally likely to be cracked, if not more. Just because the NSA hasn't invented an algo doesn't make stronger. If you can't understand that, continue your picket protest.

First you have to think about the history of the NSA and what it is here for. Think about the history of cryptography and its importance for national security. Think about what has been done in the past to break the cryptography of the "enemy" and to create its own unbreakable one.

What would be the reason to open source your "unbreakable code" and make everybody use this and your hardware?

[hhanh00]

First you have to think about the history of the NSA and what it is here for. Think about the history of cryptography and its importance for national security. Think about what has been done in the past to break the cryptography of the "enemy" and to create its own unbreakable one.

What would be the reason to open source your "unbreakable code" and make everybody use this and your hardware?

Without specialists looking at my 'unbreakable code', I wouldn't think that it's unbreakable. Hiding the algorithm doesn't do anything to make stronger.

[AGD]

First you have to think about the history of the NSA and what it is here for. Think about the history of cryptography and its importance for national security. Think about what has been done in the past to break the cryptography of the "enemy" and to create its own unbreakable one.

What would be the reason to open source your "unbreakable code" and make everybody use this and your hardware?

Without specialists looking at my 'unbreakable code', I wouldn't think that it's unbreakable. Hiding the algorithm doesn't do anything to make stronger.

a. NSA is always recruiting exactly these "specialists" and b. hiding your crypto source code is OF COURSE making it stronger.

[hhanh00]

b. hiding your crypto source code is OF COURSE making it stronger.

Hmmm. I don't know how to say it nicely but if you think that, I don't think you have studied cryptography (Browsing the web doesn't qualify).

[BurtW]

b. hiding your crypto source code is OF COURSE making it stronger.

Riddle me this:  is the "source code" for SHA hidden or not?

[AGD]

b. hiding your crypto source code is OF COURSE making it stronger.

Hmmm. I don't know how to say it nicely but if you think that, I don't think you have studied cryptography (Browsing the web doesn't qualify).

True. I didn't study cryptography, but this fact has nothing to do with my statement.
So, what you think is, that the NSA promotes a code, that the rest of the world can use to hide against NSA spying and to hide illegal activities or terrorism? OK, you possibly have studied cryptography. Now I don't know how to say it nicely, but I don't think you have a clue about the importance of cryptography in national security. Seems you simply don't know how much efford is beeing taken to be always two steps ahead of the rest of the world.

As long as the most people think they are completely anonymous with their Tor browser and their data is fully safe encrypted with TrueCrypt or Bitlocker or whatever is promoted to be "NSA resistant" at that time, it's a lot easier to control their activities.

[Shindo1988]

b. hiding your crypto source code is OF COURSE making it stronger.

Hmmm. I don't know how to say it nicely but if you think that, I don't think you have studied cryptography (Browsing the web doesn't qualify).

True. I didn't study cryptography, but this fact has nothing to do with my statement.
So, what you think is, that the NSA promotes a code, that the rest of the world can use to hide against NSA spying and to hide illegal activities or terrorism? OK, you possibly have studied cryptography. Now I don't know how to say it nicely, but I don't think you have a clue about the importance of cryptography in national security. Seems you simply don't know how much efford is beeing taken to be always two steps ahead of the rest of the world.

As long as the most people think they are completely anonymous with their Tor browser and their data is fully safe encrypted with TrueCrypt or Bitlocker or whatever is promoted to be "NSA resistant" at that time, it's a lot easier to control their activities.

That's true.
The NSA likes to keep an eye on many things.
That is why they have funded Facebook and let us not forget the famous nsakey that every Windows version has.

[AGD]

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