REWARD offered for hash collisions for SHA1, SHA256, RIPEMD160 and other

[Supercomputing]

Someone please produce a news article with this sensational title :" The Bitcoin creator's $ 1 billion hidden reward to those who break NSA's super secret algorithm".

Hmmm, a catch-22:

If an intelligent person can derive a fast enough algorithm to invert SHA-2 (256-bit), then he can also use it to mine Bitcoins faster than anyone else and gain complete control of the network. And therefore, he has no incentive to share the knowledge.

But  if an intelligent person can derive a fast enough algorithm to break ECDSA signatures based on secp256k1, then he will have complete control of the crypto economy. His only option will be to keep the algorithm private. He has no incentive to share the knowledge because he can now manipulate transactions at will.

[RussHarben]

The SHA1 bounty has been claimed - currently 1 confirmation.

https://blockchain.info/tx/8d31992805518fd62daa3bdd2a5c4fd2cd3054c9b3dca1d78055e9528cff6adc

[BornBlazed]

A double spend with 3 confirms?? i never thought i would see the day. Is this not a Zero day and needs too be patched? should we be happy this collision happened??

[jackjack]

A double spend with 3 confirms?? i never thought i would see the day. Is this not a Zero day and needs too be patched? should we be happy this collision happened??

Not a problem, the other ones are not confirmed

How the guy did it:
 - The first SHA1 collision ever has been found today: https://shattered.io/
 - He took the data from the header to the "collision blocks" (see image at bottom, 320 bytes)
 - With the data after these blocks (from JPEG data to PDF footer) being the same and the 2 hashes having the same value, we know the hashes of "header -> collision blocks" will be the same due to what SHA1 is

Congratulations to 1EohDhHJT9byKsYhxp5zX6PNkuGhxoEu9r, I completely forgot this challenge



By the way, it looks like 1aa5cmqmvQq8YQTEqcTmW7dfBNuFwgdCD is trying something: https://blockchain.info/fr/address/37k7toV1Nv4DfmQbmZ8KuZDQCYK9x5KpzP
This guy is known: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1572130.0 (amaclin: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=197593, Trust:   -512: -9 / +0 Warning: Trade with extreme caution!)
Obviously he ran a bot checking if the challenge is solved and trying to double-spend using the challenge answer before the real winner is confirmed

[amaclin]

Obviously he ran a bot checking if the challenge is solved and trying to double-spend using the challenge answer before the real winner is confirmed

In fact the bot is looking for all inputs which do not require signing by private key

[Slamm-0!]

... meanwhile, MD5 is still widely used 

[Infinum]

The SHA1 bounty has been claimed - currently 1 confirmation.

https://blockchain.info/tx/8d31992805518fd62daa3bdd2a5c4fd2cd3054c9b3dca1d78055e9528cff6adc

https://i.imgflip.com/1k7p0t.jpg

[BurtW]

Congratulations!  I had completely forgotten about this thread.

[manselr]

Is it a coincidence that this happened right when bitcoin was shattering throught the ATH?

Anyway, as far as I know we are safe for years with SHA256, or satoshi said so some years ago, he said we wouldnt see a SHA256 collision in our lifetime.

[jackjack]

Is it a coincidence that this happened right when bitcoin was shattering throught the ATH?

Anyway, as far as I know we are safe for years with SHA256, or satoshi said so some years ago, he said we wouldnt see a SHA256 collision in our lifetime.

Yeah that's funny it happened the same day but I don't see how this could be related

And hopefully we won't see an SHA256 collision in our lifetime but you never know, it may have a major flaw discovered in the following years

Here the team founds an algorithm 100000 times faster than bruteforcing

[freemanjackal]

sha256 for now can sleep peacefully, i dont know for how long, every day hardaware processing capabilities increase, and the news about china's quantum computer may affect all this

[tomtomtom7]

Stealing someone's coins by breaking ECDSA is not the same as a reward specifically for breaking something.

That is an interesting distinction as this implies that the blockchain should recognize some form of legal or moral ownership defined outside of the blockchain.

An alternative view more in line with the decentralized nature of bitcoin, is that "ownership" is simply defined as being able to produce a valid input script for an output script.

As such, someone being able to find the private key of an early public key by whatever means, must be considered the "owner". It doesn't matter if the keys are found on an (owned) usb-stick or by trial and error,

[BurtW]

You may not recognize or agree with a or any legal distinction between stealing someone's BTC and claiming a BTC reward as was done here in this thread or is being done in the puzzle transaction.

But there is a huge moral distinction between the two:  stealing someone's BTC is wrong, claiming a BTC reward is not wrong.

Just because you can do something does not make it morally right.

[tomtomtom7]

You may not recognize or agree with a or any legal distinction between stealing someone's BTC and claiming a BTC reward as was done here in this thread or is being done in the puzzle transaction.

But there is a huge moral distinction between the two:  stealing someone's BTC is wrong, claiming a BTC reward is not wrong.

Just because you can do something does not make it morally right.

Not all cases are morally clear cut. What if someone disagrees with how someone else acquired the coins in the first place?

A more interesting example of how "stealing" becomes fuzzy is LN payment channels. What if I close a channel with an earlier stage to my advantage, and I succeed because my peer for some reason fails to monitor the blockchain?

Am I stealing? Not really. My gains  would be the result of an explicit and well known  clause of our contract. Would you consider this morally wrong?

I think we should value the programmatic rules of contracts and as such not judge these types of theft in the same way as we would do with theft in the "real" world.

[manselr]

Is it a coincidence that this happened right when bitcoin was shattering throught the ATH?

Anyway, as far as I know we are safe for years with SHA256, or satoshi said so some years ago, he said we wouldnt see a SHA256 collision in our lifetime.

Yeah that's funny it happened the same day but I don't see how this could be related

And hopefully we won't see an SHA256 collision in our lifetime but you never know, it may have a major flaw discovered in the following years

Here the team founds an algorithm 100000 times faster than bruteforcing

If a SHA256 collision happens what is the worst scenario? I think I would have a hearth attack or something.

How would the Core team proceed in order to make the switch to a safe algo? Would it be an absolute fuckfest or it is a smooth process? Because I presume we wouldn't have a lot of time to waste being exposed with SHA256 through the transition.

Could anti Core trolls or just bitcoin attackers in general try to delay the switch or somehow block it?

I hope those things are properly planned in the unfortunate even that happens otherwise im not going to be able to sleep ever again.

[jackjack]

Is it a coincidence that this happened right when bitcoin was shattering throught the ATH?

Anyway, as far as I know we are safe for years with SHA256, or satoshi said so some years ago, he said we wouldnt see a SHA256 collision in our lifetime.

Yeah that's funny it happened the same day but I don't see how this could be related

And hopefully we won't see an SHA256 collision in our lifetime but you never know, it may have a major flaw discovered in the following years

Here the team founds an algorithm 100000 times faster than bruteforcing

If a SHA256 collision happens what is the worst scenario? I think I would have a hearth attack or something.

How would the Core team proceed in order to make the switch to a safe algo? Would it be an absolute fuckfest or it is a smooth process? Because I presume we wouldn't have a lot of time to waste being exposed with SHA256 through the transition.

Could anti Core trolls or just bitcoin attackers in general try to delay the switch or somehow block it?

I hope those things are properly planned in the unfortunate even that happens otherwise im not going to be able to sleep ever again.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses#Breaking_the_cryptography

[GameunitsSEO]

http://www.coindesk.com/who-broke-the-sha1-algorithm-and-what-does-it-mean-for-bitcoin/

SHA1 is like MD5 

No Panic guys 

SHA1 has also been deemed quite vulnerable to collision attacks which is why all browsers will be removing support for certificates signed with SHA1 by January 2017. SHA256 however, is currently much more resistant to collision attacks as it is able to generate a longer hash which is harder to break.

[freemanjackal]

thats something we could see it coming, thats why it was developed sha256 and some other algos, like will be created many more algos to replace sha256, it will be interesting to see what would  btc core developers do on those coming scenarios

[Syke]

4) "When Will We See Collisions for SHA-1?" - Bruce Schneier -https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/10/when_will_we_se.html

Bruce sure knows his stuff.

A collision attack is therefore well within the range of what an organized crime syndicate can practically budget by 2018, and a university research project by 2021.

...the need to transition from SHA-1 for collision resistance functions is probably more urgent than this back-of-the-envelope analysis suggests.

Any increase in the number of cores per CPU, or the number of CPUs per server, also affects these calculations. Also, any improvements in cryptanalysis will further reduce the complexity of this attack.

[realdantreccia]

Not to take away from Peters wonderful challenge to the world but shouldn't this have been better directed at the ECDSA weaknesses implied by Schnier assuming of course this was his motivation for posting this?

I don't believe there is a way to construct such a thing— beyond all the coins which are pay to pubkey (e.g. early unspent blocks) and all the coins which are assigned to addresses which have spent before so the pubkey is known.

I'm not sure if anyone has identified any known-lost pay to pubkeys which can be redeemed without stealing from someone. Might be good for someone to do that.

Here you go.

https://block.d.evco.in/tx/e61339a40aa4e90e983fe0d64cf09eed5fa1e6eac227b6761f06ac7af1929baf

Not sure how to redeem myself. But there's the same pubkey as BTC Block 0.