I think going with the shorter hash for now is the best move, especially with regards to possible future enhancements.
Sent from my iPhone https://urn.to/r/mistachkin > On Feb 28, 2017, at 11:17 AM, Richard Hipp <d...@sqlite.org> wrote: > > Need your input: Should the new default hash algorithm be SHA3-224 or > SHA3-256? > > Remember, the desire is that there be no options. Fossil should just > do the right thing. VCS users should not have to worry with piddly > details like hashing algorithms. So "make it an option that the user > has to choose" is an incorrect answer. > > But what is the "right thing". > > Assuming no weaknesses are found in the algorithm, collisions are at > least 4 billion times more expensive to find in SHA3-224 than in SHA1. > Is 4-billion times harder sufficient? > > Note that if in a few years we find that SHA3-224 is insufficient, all > the ground work has already been done and it will be a simple matter > to transition to a new (longer and/or better) hash at that time. > > This morning I was thinking of using SHA3-256. But after looking at a > bunch of hashes on-screen, and seeing how long they are, I'm inclined > now to go with the shorter SHA3-224. > > Your feedback is important! > > -- > D. Richard Hipp > d...@sqlite.org > _______________________________________________ > fossil-dev mailing list > fossil-dev@mailinglists.sqlite.org > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-dev > _______________________________________________ fossil-dev mailing list fossil-dev@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-dev
