I strongly encourage Bitcoin to move from 80-bit collision resistance (RIPEMD-160) to 128-bit collision resistance (SHA-256).
On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > On Feb 25, 2017 14:09, "Steve Davis via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists. > linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > Hi Peter, > > > I really, really don’t want to get into it but segwit has many aspects > that are less appealing, not least of which being the amount of time it > would take to reach the critical mass. > > Surely there's a number of alternative approaches which could be explored, > even if only to make a fair assessment of a best response? > > > Any alternative to move us away from RIPEMD160 would require: > * A drafting of a softfork proposal, implementation, testing, review. > * A new address format > * Miners accepting the new consensus rules > * Wallets adopting the new address format, both on the sender side and > receiver side (which requires new signatures). > > I.e., exactly the same as segwit, for which most of these are already > done. And it would still only apply to wallets adopting it. > > -- > Pieter > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > >
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
