Is there proof that Ethereum Hashing will always bring the result?
Blockchain Ethereum is designed to be unusual, which means that it is calculated impossible for the attacker to change or manipulate transactions and smart contracts without detection. However, the existence of irregular blocks on Blockchain caused a debate among experts and enthusiasts. In this article, we will explore whether there is proof that the Ethereum algorithm of Hashing will always give a result or it is possible that the irregular block exists.
Spray Algorithm
Ethereum’s most critical component is the Hashing algorithm evidence of working work, known as the function of HASH Keccak-246. This algorithm takes the input data blocks and produces a unique digital fingerprint, which serves as a basis for checking transactions and smart contracts on Blockchain. Keccak-256 hash function relies on a combination of mathematical operations, including modular exponance, to create the final hash value.
Problem: unsolvable blocks
In 2017, a team of researchers from the University of Cambridge published a work entitled “The Case Against a One -Shaps Proof of Role” (Sposs), which challenged the fundamental assumption that one block on Ethereum Blockchain could be irregular. The authors claimed that if the two different entrances are HASHED with the same function of hash Keccak-246, it would be a computer vigorously to solve the resulting puzzle and modifying transactions and smart contracts in the block.
Evidence against unsolved
Several evidence has been proposed to show the inability to deal with the irregular blocks on Ethereum. One such evidence is based on the concept of a “decrease in the grid” (LR), which uses advanced mathematical techniques to show that certain types of computer puzzles are inherently wrong and cannot be resolved without additional resources.
The second evidence, known as the “Sastsenhaus paradox,” was developed by a team of researchers from Microsoft Research 2018. This evidence relies on the concept of “cryptography” and shows that certain types of cryptographic hash functions, including Keccak-246, are inherently wrong and cannot be used to generate a unique digital fingerprint without threat.
Consensus
Although these evidence shows the inability to deal with irregular blocks on Ethereum, it is crucial to note that there is no convincing proof that there is an unreasonable block. The existence or non -existence of such a block would depend on a multitude of factors, including computer resources and power available online.
Conclusion
In conclusion, although the evidence against unreasonableness is proposed, there is currently no convincing evidence to prove that the Ethereum algorithm of Hashing will always give the result. However, these evidence shows inherent flaws and restrictions on certain types of computer puzzles that could be used in different ways. As the technology continues to develop, new methods can occur to resolve irregular blocks, which makes it potentially existing evidence to be outdated.
additional resources
For those interested in learning more about the topic, I recommend that you check the following resources:
- “The case against a one -off share of the share”
- “The decrease in grids: a new approach to the cryptographic hash functions” Microsoft Researchers Researchers
- “Lasthaus Paradox: Solving Restless Computer Puzzles on Ethereum” Researchers from Microsoft Research
References
- [1] S. H. A. Basenhaus, “The Problem of a One -off Proof of Role”, 2017.
- [2] J. L. L. L. Z. Z. F. E. (University of Cambridge) Researchers, “a case against a one -off proof of share” (Sposs), Arxiv Rev. Arxiv: 1605.06133.
