> It's very easy to write a cache-timing-safe version of base{16,32,64} encoding ... > Base-122? Not sure if it's even possible. Parent is clearly referring t

> It's very easy to write a cache-timing-safe version of base{16,32,64} encoding ... > Base-122? Not sure if it's even possible. Parent is clearly referring to his previous statement, not that Base-122 itself is not possible.