>> It won't work because these algorithms are designed to have no patterns at all
Every encryption algorithm proposal has this property of being designed to have no patterns....
>> It won't work because these algorithms are designed to have no patterns at all
Every encryption algorithm proposal has this property of being designed to have no patterns....
And some of them still have no known patterns! Even the "broken" ones have only really subtle patterns. SHAttered was only 2^17 times faster than brute force. It took 2^63 attempts instead of 2^80 that bruteforce would take (which was arguably already too low).
Yup, sure. But my claim is that I believe it's better than 20-1 against that a model can break it. The fact that many encryption schemes have later been shown to be fragile and that very very large models seem to be able to things we can't explain well, and that you can create enormous amounts of training data for this problem makes my claim not so far fetched.
Try it and see then. If you can reverse double-SHA256 with some constraints, you can print yourself infinite bitcoin. If you can reverse whatever they use for public keys (RIPEMD and some elliptic curve) you can steal yourself infinite bitcoin.
Yes, indeed. And if I really had a good idea for an architecture, and millions to blow trying different ideas... I would be doing that and not on hacker news.