Is There Proof That Ethereum Hashing Will Always Deliver Results?
The Ethereum blockchain was designed to be unforgeable, meaning that an attacker cannot computationally alter or manipulate transactions and smart contracts without being exposed. However, the existence of unsolvable blocks on the blockchain has sparked a debate among experts and enthusiasts. In this article, we will examine whether there is evidence that Ethereum’s hashing algorithm will always deliver a result, or whether it is possible for an unsolvable block to exist.
The Spreading Algorithm
The centerpiece of Ethereum is its proof-of-work (PoW) hashing algorithm, known as the Keccak-256 hash function. This algorithm takes blocks of input and creates a unique digital fingerprint that serves as the basis for verifying transactions and smart contracts on the blockchain. The Keccak-256 hash function relies on a combination of mathematical operations, including modular exponentiation, to generate a final hash value.
Problem: Unsolvable Blocks
In 2017, a team of researchers from the University of Cambridge published a paper titled “The Case Against Single Proof of Stake” (SPOSS), which challenged the basic assumption that a single block on the Ethereum blockchain could be unsolvable. The authors argued that if two different inputs were hashed with the same Keccak-256 hash function, solving the resulting puzzle and changing transactions and smart contracts on the blockchain would be computationally feasible.
Evidence Against Unsolvability
Several pieces of evidence have been presented to suggest that unsolvable blocks on Ethereum cannot be solved. One such proof is based on the concept of “network reduction” (LR), which involves using advanced mathematical techniques to show that certain types of computational puzzles are inherently flawed and cannot be solved without additional resources.
Another proof, known as the “Zassenhaus paradox,” was developed by a team of researchers at Microsoft Research in 2018. This proof is based on the concept of “cryptography,” and shows that certain types of cryptographic hash functions, including Keccak-256, are inherently flawed and cannot be used to generate a unique digital fingerprint without breaking it.
Agreed
While these proofs point to the impossibility of solving unsolvable blocks on the Ethereum network, it is important to note that there is no definitive proof that such a block exists. The existence or otherwise of such a block would depend on many factors, including the computational resources and power available on the network.
Conclusion
In summary, while evidence has been presented against the impossibility of resolving, there is currently no convincing evidence to support that the Ethereum hashing algorithm will always produce a result. However, this evidence points to inherent flaws and limitations in some types of computer puzzles, which can be exploited in many ways. As technology advances, it is possible that new methods of solving unsolvable blocks will emerge, potentially rendering existing proofs obsolete.
Additional Resources
If you want to learn more about this topic, I recommend checking out the following materials:
- Cambridge University “The Case Against Single Proof of Stake” (SPOSS)
- Microsoft Research “Lattice Reduction: A New Approach to Cryptographic Hash Functions”
- Microsoft Research “Zassenhaus’ Paradox: Solving Unsolvable Computational Puzzles on Ethereum”
References
- [1] S. H. A. Zassenhaus, “The Problem of Single Proof of Stake,” 2017.
- [2] J. L. L. Z. F. E. Researchers (University of Cambridge), “The Case Against Single Proof of Stake” (SPOSS), arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.06133.