[jimmyfalcon]

This leads to me to think about the longer term viability of bitcoin. Bitcoin uses a combination of RIPEMD and SHA256. Given the sha-2 family was released in 2001, when is SHA-2 going to go into depreciation cycle and what does that mean for the bitcoin network.

Given that there are plenty of op-codes left, the network can probably easily start switching into in the next generation of hashing algorithms.

This is the beautiful thing about open networks, it evolves organically. Whereas you can't say the same about bank protocols.

[tptacek]

You can't look at SHA-1, SHA-2, and SHA-3 as successive "versions" of hash functions. They're distinct things. SHA-3 isn't so much "better" than SHA-2 as it is "different". It has some practical improvements, but those improvements aren't relevant to the certificate use case.

So far as we know, there is no timeline for the deprecation of SHA-2. In fact, most people are better off right now using SHA-2 than SHA-3.

[phillmv]

Anyone who has dealt with bank protocols will tell you that "organic" is certainly an apt, if perhaps too kind, word. It's not like it's all designed by committee.

The difference is you don't get to see the haggling and back and forth. Ten years from now, when a large bitcoin institution has a mission-critical legacy app that depends on some facet of the network, we're likely to see similar shenanigans.

I would venture, at least. Simplicity is probably the product of a) abstraction, or b) a small number of stakeholders.

[imaginenore]

It's a common myth. Bitcoin can be easily upgraded to use any algorithm.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Myths#Quantum_computers_would_bre...

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Myths#Bitcoins_are_worthless_beca...