|
|
Post by AnthroHeart on May 24, 2021 14:00:37 GMT
Proposal: Using a HASH as a standin for a very large (~GB) Nesting File. Could we create a large hash of a GB sized file, and use that as the Nesting Link? Here are various HASH functions: www.freecodecamp.org/news/md5-vs-sha-1-vs-sha-2-which-is-the-most-secure-encryption-hash-and-how-to-check-them/It says this: No ideal hash function exists, of course, but each aims to operate as close to the ideal as possible. Given that (most) hash functions return fixed-length values and the range of values is therefore constrained, that constraint can practically be ignored. The number of possible values that can be returned by a a 256-bit hash function, for instance, is roughly the same as the number of atoms in the universe. Ideally, a hash function returns practically no collisions – that is to say, no two different inputs generate the same hash value. This is particularly import for cryptographic hash functions: hash collisions are considered a vulnerability. |
|
|
|
Post by AnthroHeart on May 24, 2021 14:09:28 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by reden on May 24, 2021 14:12:34 GMT
Here is a SHA256 hash of the 10k files, 1 million Repeats file d2f0fe1918eae8a08df4e389d96e6de9598f79d0fafd9a9d14818cb21505ac99 winmults-10k-1Mrep.zip .
Add it to a text file and Repeat it.
See if it still works.
One thing: maybe the real file needs to exist somewhere, not necessarily in the same folder, but maybe with the same name, and not a single changed byte for it to work.
Another observation: it seems that low file amounts but with titanic Repeats are better than more files with slightly less Repeats, because making so many files is slow.
Also because of the power principle, which means that 10000^1 million is like 1^4 million instead of 50000 or whatever.
Edit: Same name is not necessary.
In fact it might be that hashes are universal.
|
|
|
|
Post by reden on May 24, 2021 14:15:13 GMT
SHA256, despite being only 256 bits, is incredibly common.
Other bit options my shasum program gave me are: 1 (default), 224, 256, 384, 512, 512224, 512256.
It's a perl version for some reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by reden on May 24, 2021 14:19:14 GMT
The program is called sha3sum. Edit: Here is its link github.com/maandree/sha3sumNotice when it says: "NOTES Packagers are advised to separate sha3sum(1) into its own packages, apart from the other commands, as it is mearly provided for compatibility and it could cause package conflict with other implementations that only provide sha3sum(1) such as busybox." This means that sha3sum is often provided independently. |
|
|
|
Post by AnthroHeart on May 24, 2021 14:21:24 GMT
SHA256, despite being only 256 bits, is incredibly common. Other bit options my shasum program gave me are: 1 (default), 224, 256, 384, 512, 512224, 512256. It's a perl version for some reason. Cool. Can you play around with creating a unique hash of your huge file and run that HASH in the Repeater? If that works, that's fricken cool. |
|
|
|
Post by reden on May 24, 2021 14:23:43 GMT
SHA256, despite being only 256 bits, is incredibly common. Other bit options my shasum program gave me are: 1 (default), 224, 256, 384, 512, 512224, 512256. It's a perl version for some reason. Cool. Can you play around with creating a unique hash of your huge file and run that HASH in the Repeater? If that works, that's fricken cool. The hash on the Repeater? It would slow things down as opposed to on a small text file. I wonder if the .txt extension is even necessary. I think your latest nesting update proves that it's not... but I haven't done much testing yet. |
|
|
|
Post by AnthroHeart on May 24, 2021 14:24:33 GMT
Here is a SHA256 hash of the 10k files, 1 million Repeats file d2f0fe1918eae8a08df4e389d96e6de9598f79d0fafd9a9d14818cb21505ac99 winmults-10k-1Mrep.zip . Add it to a text file and Repeat it. See if it still works. One thing: maybe the real file needs to exist somewhere, not necessarily in the same folder, but maybe with the same name, and not a single changed byte for it to work. Another observation: it seems that low file amounts but with titanic Repeats are better than more files with slightly less Repeats, because making so many files is slow. Also because of the power principle, which means that 10000^1 million is like 1^4 million instead of 50000 or whatever. Edit: Same name is not necessary. In fact it might be that hashes are universal. Is that bold part the hash itself? Yes, the HASH is just the link. You still need INTENTIONS.TXT file, because the bottom of the Nesting Stack, P0 (Power File 0), references INTENTIONS.TXT. If we can HASH, and then build that HASH up to GB in size, and then HASH again and repeat, I wonder if it can be infinite? |
|
|
|
Post by AnthroHeart on May 24, 2021 14:25:03 GMT
Cool. Can you play around with creating a unique hash of your huge file and run that HASH in the Repeater? If that works, that's fricken cool. The hash on the Repeater? It would slow things down as opposed to on a small text file. I wonder if the .txt extension is even necessary. I think your latest nesting update proves that it's not... but I haven't done much testing yet. No, you create the hash before, and run just the hash string in the Repeater. |
|
|
|
Post by AnthroHeart on May 24, 2021 14:25:43 GMT
Cool. Can you play around with creating a unique hash of your huge file and run that HASH in the Repeater? If that works, that's fricken cool. The hash on the Repeater? It would slow things down as opposed to on a small text file. I wonder if the .txt extension is even necessary. I think your latest nesting update proves that it's not... but I haven't done much testing yet. I didn't know before that Windows allows files without an extension. So I had put .TXT. |
|
|
|
Post by reden on May 24, 2021 14:26:33 GMT
Here is a SHA256 hash of the 10k files, 1 million Repeats file d2f0fe1918eae8a08df4e389d96e6de9598f79d0fafd9a9d14818cb21505ac99 winmults-10k-1Mrep.zip . Add it to a text file and Repeat it. See if it still works. One thing: maybe the real file needs to exist somewhere, not necessarily in the same folder, but maybe with the same name, and not a single changed byte for it to work. Another observation: it seems that low file amounts but with titanic Repeats are better than more files with slightly less Repeats, because making so many files is slow. Also because of the power principle, which means that 10000^1 million is like 1^4 million instead of 50000 or whatever. Edit: Same name is not necessary. In fact it might be that hashes are universal. Is that bold part the hash itself? Yes, the HASH is just the link. You still need INTENTIONS.TXT file, because the bottom of the Nesting Stack, P0 (Power File 0), references INTENTIONS.TXT. If we can HASH, and then build that HASH up to GB in size, and then HASH again and repeat, I wonder if it can be infinite? "Is that bold part the hash itself?" Yes. "If we can HASH, and then build that HASH up to GB in size, and then HASH again and repeat, I wonder if it can be infinite?" It is plausible. |
|
|
|
Post by AnthroHeart on May 24, 2021 14:27:01 GMT
Here is a SHA256 hash of the 10k files, 1 million Repeats file d2f0fe1918eae8a08df4e389d96e6de9598f79d0fafd9a9d14818cb21505ac99 winmults-10k-1Mrep.zip . Add it to a text file and Repeat it. See if it still works. One thing: maybe the real file needs to exist somewhere, not necessarily in the same folder, but maybe with the same name, and not a single changed byte for it to work. Another observation: it seems that low file amounts but with titanic Repeats are better than more files with slightly less Repeats, because making so many files is slow. Also because of the power principle, which means that 10000^1 million is like 1^4 million instead of 50000 or whatever. Edit: Same name is not necessary. In fact it might be that hashes are universal. Is that bold part the hash itself? Yes, the HASH is just the link. You still need INTENTIONS.TXT file, because the bottom of the Nesting Stack, P0 (Power File 0), references INTENTIONS.TXT. If we can HASH, and then build that HASH up to GB in size, and then HASH again and repeat, I wonder if it can be infinite? Ok, you would just need to run the HASH string. And have INTENTIONS.TXT in your folder. You might not even need the 10k-1Mrep file anymore. The HASH should point straight to the INTENTIONS.TXT file. |
|
|
|
Post by AnthroHeart on May 24, 2021 14:28:16 GMT
Is that bold part the hash itself? Yes, the HASH is just the link. You still need INTENTIONS.TXT file, because the bottom of the Nesting Stack, P0 (Power File 0), references INTENTIONS.TXT. If we can HASH, and then build that HASH up to GB in size, and then HASH again and repeat, I wonder if it can be infinite? "Is that bold part the hash itself?" Yes. "If we can HASH, and then build that HASH up to GB in size, and then HASH again and repeat, I wonder if it can be infinite?" It is plausible. What size HASH would we need to reduce the risk of collisions? Now we're in cryptography. Fascinating. |
|
|
|
Post by AnthroHeart on May 24, 2021 14:38:00 GMT
Here is a SHA256 hash of the 10k files, 1 million Repeats file d2f0fe1918eae8a08df4e389d96e6de9598f79d0fafd9a9d14818cb21505ac99 winmults-10k-1Mrep.zip . Add it to a text file and Repeat it. See if it still works. One thing: maybe the real file needs to exist somewhere, not necessarily in the same folder, but maybe with the same name, and not a single changed byte for it to work. Another observation: it seems that low file amounts but with titanic Repeats are better than more files with slightly less Repeats, because making so many files is slow. Also because of the power principle, which means that 10000^1 million is like 1^4 million instead of 50000 or whatever. Edit: Same name is not necessary. In fact it might be that hashes are universal.Hmm, how can a HASH fully reflect something that is one of infinite possibilities? I think it's through your intent. But we get as close as we can. |
|
|
|
Post by AnthroHeart on May 24, 2021 14:38:55 GMT
If it is feasible, I'll create a hashing engine later to loop the hash, build it up to whatever size, and hash and repeat.
|
|
