The usual idea here is that you use very large hashes (e.g. 256 bits or larger) such that the probability of a collision is less than, for example, the probability of cosmic radiation causing the same issues over the course of a couple years, or of a meteor striking your computer.
Then you stop worrying and love the bomb. In practice, even when a collision does occur, it is very unlikely to occur in a context where it is problematic. But, just in case it does happen in a case where it might be problematic, you should have some other robustness layers - e.g. the normal sort of checks and balances a system should possess. On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 5:50 PM, Wolfgang Eder <[email protected]> wrote: > hi, > in recent discussions on this list, the idea of using hashes to > identify or even name things is often mentioned. > in this context, hashes are treated as being unique; > > albeit unlikely, it *is* possible that hashes are equal > for two distinct things. are there ideas about > how to handle such a situation? > > thanks and kind regards > wolfgang > ______________________________**_________________ > fonc mailing list > [email protected] > http://vpri.org/mailman/**listinfo/fonc<http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc> >
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
