Conjecture: Only one Fibonacci number is the sum of two cubes As the title says, I need help proving or disproving that there is only one Fibonacci number that's the sum of two (positive) cubes, $2$. I did a small brute force test with Fibonacci numbers below $10^{15}$ but I couldn't find anything. 
Edit: A possibly fast way to factor sums of cubes is described in another question here. 
I tested Hagen von Eitzen's $F_{3n} - F^3_{n+1}$ up to $n = 200000$ and brute force up to $10^{21}$ but no results. As the numbers grow bigger the chance of a cube gets smaller. 
 A: There are no further solutions for $n \leq 300$.  Even dropping the
positivity condition the only other solutions are
$F_6 = 8 = 2^3 + 0^3 = 0^3 + 2^3$.
This corroborates Hurkyl's heuristic that it is almost certain
that there are no other Fibonacci numbers that are sums of two cubes.
I doubt that this can be proved, though the search technique described below
can surely be used well past $n=300$, because the main difficulty is
factoring $F_n$, and $F_{300}$ has only about $60$ digits.
To try to express an integer $f$ as $a^3+b^3$, use the factorization
$a^3 + b^3 = (a+b)(a^2-ab+b^2)$.  For each pair $(x,y)$ such that $f=(x,y)$,
check whether $3(4x-y^2)$ is a square, since that's the criterion for
$(x, y) = (a^2-ab+b^2, a+b)$ [the point is that  $4x-y^2 = 3(a-b)^2$].
I did this for $f=F_n$ and all $n \leq 300$ using
this
table of Fibonacci factorizations
(discarding the 100 values of $n$ for which $F_n\bmod 9 \in \{3,4,5,6\}$,
since such a number can never be the sum of two cubes).
This took only ~30 seconds in gp, even though
some candidates $F_n$ in this range have more than a million factors.
Only the known solutions for $F_3=2$ and $F_6=8$ were found.
(also reported at MSE
question 822435.)
A: In the interest of accuracy, I am completely rewriting my answer. As Random Excess said in the comments, every Fibonacci number is either a sum or a difference of two squares, and I think this can be helpful, because we can compare the sums of cubes that are also sums or differences of squares:
$$2, 9, 16, 28, 35, 65, 72, 91, 128\dots$$
to the Fibonacci sequence:
$$0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55,89\dots$$
As you can see, the only number they have in common this early in both sequences is $2$.
This could make your search faster by limiting the number of terms in the sequence of sums of cubes, and in the right hands, it might also be used to prove your conjecture! I hope this helps!
I also think Jack D'Aurizio's idea of using:
$$5(a^3+b^3)^2=c^2\pm~4$$
which is just another way of checking that
$$F_n=a^3+b^3$$
has merit because it means you only have to examine each sum of cubes once.
Keep in mind as well:
$$\begin{align}(a^3+b^3)&=(a+b)(a^2-ab+b^2)\\
&=(a+b)(a^2-2ab+b^2+ab)\\
&=(a+b)((a-b)^2+ab)
\end{align}$$
I am testing a program that uses the formula mentioned above and have discovered that it is extremely slow, because I have to check both cases and take the square root. You might like to check this answer as it may be faster to check the interval instead for an integer. The simplest way I know of to do this is to take the floor value of both numbers:
$$\left\lfloor\frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{2}(a^3+b^3)-\frac{1}{a^3+b^3}\right\rfloor\lower{1em}{\LARGE,}\left\lfloor\frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{2}(a^3+b^3)+\frac{1}{a^3+b^3}\right\rfloor$$
If both numbers are equal, the number is not Fibonacci. If they are different, it is!
Edit: Forget about everything I said above. It turns out to be far more efficient to iterate through the Fibonacci numbers, testing the sums of cubes for each one, as:
$$a\leqslant\sqrt[\LARGE 3]{\frac{F_n}{2}},b=\sqrt[\LARGE 3]{F_n-a^3}$$
So in short, my answer was right the first time. My program could still be more efficient, but it's up to $\require{enclose}\enclose{horizontalstrike}{F_{122} F_{141}}F_{168}$ already. I'm also using the modular constraints$\mod 63$ to catch some of the ones that are definitely not sums of cubes, which makes the program even faster. Instead of checking the sums of cubes directly, I am checking for this for every $a,b$:
$$(a+b)\mid F_n\\
\frac{F_n}{a+b}=a^2-ab+b^2$$
So far, $F_3=2$ is the only sum of cubes in the Fibonacci sequence.
A: On the assumption there isn't an "easy" reason for the answer to be yes or no, here is a heuristic justification of the conjecture.
There are only $O(n^{2/3})$ ways to write a sum of two (positive) cubes that is a number less than $n$; a "random" number of size $\Theta(n)$ therefore has a probability $O(n^{-1/3})$ of being a sum of two cubes, with the hidden constant not being too small. (probably a little less than $1/3$)
The expected number of ways to write a Fibonacci number as a sum of two cubes is thus something like
$$ O\left( \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} F_n^{-1/3} \right)
\approx O\left( \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \varphi^{-n/3}  \right)
\approx O\left( \frac{1}{1 - \varphi^{-1/3}} \right)$$
so it's probably a small finite number. Your empirical evidence says the small finite number is probably $1$.
It is quite possible that the conjecture is true, but for no good reason at all, which would make it very hard to come up with a proof. It might even be independent of Peano's axioms!
