[148603] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
[Cryptography] Bitcoin Question - This may not be the best place to
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mike Tsao)
Mon Dec 23 00:48:51 2013
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2013 20:30:15 -0800
From: Mike Tsao <mike@sowbug.com>
To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
Errors-To: cryptography-bounces+crypto.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@metzdowd.com
> Exactly my point. What's the collision resolution strategy and why isn't
> this a scary proposition?
Steve already implicitly answered this question with the
50%-after-2^80 figure. When the likelihood is that low, a system
doesn't need a collision resolution strategy. Our sun will likely
engulf our planet sooner than the first Bitcoin address collision,
assuming SHA-256 and RIPEMD-160 aren't badly broken before then. If
cryptographic or hardware advances prove that estimate to be overly
optimistic, it's straightforward to update the code to allow longer
addresses based on a wider hash. People can then move their funds over
from the old addresses to new ones.
_______________________________________________
The cryptography mailing list
cryptography@metzdowd.com
http://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
