On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 6:52 PM, Pieter Wuille <[email protected]> wrote:
> Bitcoin does have parts that rely on economic arguments for security or > privacy, but can we please stick to using cryptography that is up to par > for parts where we can? It's a small constant factor of data, and it > categorically removes the worry about security levels. > Our message may have crossed in the mod queue: "So can we quantify the incremental increase in security of SHA256(SHA256) over RIPEMD160(SHA256) versus the incremental increase in security of having a simpler implementation of segwitness?" I believe the history of computer security is that implementation errors and sidechannel attacks are much, much more common than brute-force breaks. KEEP IT SIMPLE. (and a quibble: "do a 80-bit search for B and C such that H(A and B) = H(B and C)" isn't enough, you have to end up with a C public key for which you know the corresponding private key or the attacker just succeeds in burning the funds) -- -- Gavin Andresen
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
