From b1ad72ed72a0d21e7ee691dc4f60db66b145a0a0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: wakgill <76528604+wakgill@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2021 23:47:24 -0600 Subject: [PATCH] Update 156.md --- docs/forum/bitcoin-forum/156.md | 5 +++-- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/docs/forum/bitcoin-forum/156.md b/docs/forum/bitcoin-forum/156.md index bec50ad..3deb26e 100644 --- a/docs/forum/bitcoin-forum/156.md +++ b/docs/forum/bitcoin-forum/156.md @@ -22,5 +22,6 @@ https://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=191.msg1585#msg1585 ------------- 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. -------------- +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. +------------- +