Bitcoin stores its addresses as a combined SHA256 + RIPE-MD160 hash. Is it correct to assume this is done to prevent a failure in the algorithm?

Since SHA3 was designed to be an alternative to SHA256, and uses a completely different methodology, would a SHA3(SHA2) or similar construction provide more security than RIPE-MD160(SHA2)?

What performance, security, and other tradeoffs are worth considering?

Are the SHAKE parameters of Keccak sufficient, or should I use non SHAKE parameters?


When using SHA256 + RIPEMD-160, you are not only accumulating two different algorithm, but you are also varying your algorithm vendors, since SHA256 comes from US NSA/NIST and RIPEMD-160 comes from the european academic community.

While it is true that SHA-3 has not been directly designed by NSA, it went as a winner from NIST competition, and NSA is more or less involved in NIST, may it be for the good or the worse. So, if you combine SHA256 + SHA-3, the two algorithm may be linked to the NSA and at least to NIST, so this may be seen as a potential weakness you can avoid by combining two algorithm with no link between them.

|improve this answer|||||

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.