From 3c9a8da1d1884bc64b9e64955501d96f8e9a7707 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: wakgill <76528604+wakgill@users.noreply.github.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2021 23:48:08 -0600
Subject: [PATCH] Create 115.md

---
 docs/forum/bitcoin-forum/115.md | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 docs/forum/bitcoin-forum/115.md

diff --git a/docs/forum/bitcoin-forum/115.md b/docs/forum/bitcoin-forum/115.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..977cc1a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/forum/bitcoin-forum/115.md
@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+---
+layout: forum
+title: 'Re: Dealing with SHA-256 Collisions'
+grand_parent: Forum Posts
+parent: Bitcoin Forum
+nav_order: 115
+date: 2010-06-14 20:39:50 UTC
+original: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=191.msg1585#msg1585
+---
+
+# Re: Dealing with SHA-256 Collisions
+
+---
+
+```
+Re: Dealing with SHA-256 Collisions
+June 14, 2010, 08:39:50 PM
+
+SHA-256 is very strong.  It's not like the incremental step from MD5 to SHA1.  It can last several decades unless there's some massive breakthrough attack.
+
+If SHA-256 became completely broken, I think we could come to some agreement about what the honest block chain was before the trouble started, lock that in and continue from there with a new hash function.
+
+If the hash breakdown came gradually, we could transition to a new hash in an orderly way.  The software would be programmed to start using a new hash after a certain block number.  Everyone would have to upgrade by that time.  The software could save the new hash of all the old blocks to make sure a different block with the same old hash can't be used.
+```