Hacker News Reader

Comment by IncRnd | Hacker News Reader

Chungy is correct though. Bitcoin has absolutely nothing to do with "cracking sha256 hashes". Bitcoin hashes until the correct output is found. There are double hashes, but that is solely to avoid collisions and has nothing to do with determining the plaintext from a known digest.

View on HN

It's kinda sad. If we persisted all the hashes that have been tried, we'd have the mother of all rainbow tables.

Be a bitch to search. But damn would we know the topography of the function space.

Why hasn't anyone made that crypto currency yet?

Because it would actually solve a problem?

...I'll see myself out.

>and has nothing to do with determining the plaintext from a known digest.

So why'd you bring it up?

User bitcoinistrash is the one that brought it up, and they're spreading incorrect information about how it works.

Cracking sha256 hashes implies trying to reverse a specific hash. There are literally thousands (millions?) of potential inputs that hash to a valid bitcoin mining block output. It's basically a race to find the first one matching the rules of the current block difficulty. The goal isn't to produce any one specific input/hash pair.

In which context would somebody try to reverse a hash? That would be like arbitrarily enhancing a bad-resolution image to see something that cannot be seen.

Hash collision should always be about finding matching content for a hash.

And if you cracked the math of sha256 you wouldnt need to search you would just calculate one of the inputs to produce whatever you want. All zeros would be as easy as one.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com