Tangem Wallet Pack of 2 - Secure Crypto Wallet - Trusted Cold Storage for Bitcoin, Ethereum, NFT's &

Tangem Wallet Pack of 2 - Secure Crypto Wallet - Trusted Cold Storage for Bitcoin, Ethereum, NFT's &
Key item features Ultimate Security: Generates a private key that remains on the card, safeguarding crypto and NFTs from hackers with EAL6+ certification and audited firmware. Versatile Compatibility: Manages over 13,000 tokens across 70+ blockchains, supporting DeFi, NFTs, and DeEx without wires, Bluetooth, or USB. Effortless Operation: Utilizes NFC for secure transactions via a mobile device and the Tangem app, enabling buying and selling crypto with various payment methods. Smart Backup: Features a second Tangem Wallet as a backup, eliminating the need for paper, pictures, or seed phrases for recovery. Durable Design: Boasts IP68 protection against environmental conditions, ensuring longevity and robust physical security. Comprehensive Support: Compatible with Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, XRP, USDT, and over 6,000 cryptocurrencies, integrating with dApps and WalletConnect.

LBANK

Why does SHA-256d (double SHA-256) in Bitcoin have a constrained message schedule in the second hash?

Bitcoin mining uses SHA-256d: SHA-256(SHA-256(data)).

I recently discovered experimentally (IACR ePrint 2026/109079) that the second SHA-256 application has a structurally constrained message schedule:

  • The second hash always receives exactly 32 bytes (the first hash output) + fixed Merkle-Damgård padding
  • This makes W[8-15] in the second hash always constant (0x80000000... + length encoding)
  • Only 30 unique carry patterns exist in the second hash vs theoretical 2^64
  • Measurable cross-hash anti-correlation: 9.56σ (confirmed real, scales as √N)

My questions:

  1. Was this structural property of SHA-256d considered when Bitcoin adopted double-SHA-256? Or was it chosen purely for length-extension attack resistance?

  2. Is there any documentation of this constrained W-schedule effect in Bitcoin's design rationale?

  3. Does this property have any known implications for Bitcoin's security model beyond length-extension resistance?

The correlation is not exploitable (r=0.03, <0.1% variance explained), but it is a measurable deviation from ideal independence of the two hash applications.



from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/zFeAjX6
via IFTTT

Popular posts from this blog

Crypto Exec Warns Tokenization Is Moving Faster Than Expected

Bitcoin Mining Could Be Strengthening The Ruble, Russian Central Bank Says

Nigerian SEC Partners With Police To Tackle Crypto Ponzi Schemes – Details