> OK, produce a SHA-2 collision.

- Why a collision?

> Because man made SHA-2, so it must be breakable. I don't dispute that there are systems humans make that are breakable (that would be weird given my career).

Thus implying there are man-made systems that are not breakable, and furthermore SHA-2 is one of them.

> I haven't discarded any date.

Going back so quickly?

▲

tptacek a day ago | parent [-]

I'm sorry, you've lost me. I was responding to the claim that any man-made system was breakable. The most obvious example of a man-made system that is unlikely to be breakable in our lifetimes (so, I'll say, "ever") is SHA2. Then someone responded that SHA2 wasn't an interesting target. It doesn't have to be; it just has to be man-made, or concede the narrowing of the original claim.

▲

BoingBoomTschak 15 hours ago | parent | next [-]

[flagged]

▲

jrflowers 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

lmao at substituting “ever” for “in our lifetimes”

“That will never happen” and “I think I’ll die before that happens” aren’t interchangeable. Hydrogen will never have two protons, SHA-2 will be broken. “I personally don’t consider a future where I’m not around as existing” is like busting out an Uno reverse card when you lose a hand at poker

▲

tptacek 10 hours ago | parent [-]

This objection doesn't make sense in the context of the thread.

	▲	akerl_ 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I wonder when Kalshi will start offering bets where one side doesn’t pay out until the end of the universe.