> if you understand the Math and agree that whatever you do needs to go through a proper peer review then why not. Because crypto is really hard and you can't

> if you understand the Math and agree that whatever you do needs to go through a proper peer review then why not. Because crypto is really hard and you can't prove your new algorithm is secure. Only after being a popular high value target for years can you have much trust in your new hash. Even SHA2 might have flaws nobody knows about - that's the main purpose behind having SHA3 standardised - as a backup.¹ If you are not the designer of the algorithm it's even worse, because an exploit could be put in intentionally by proper choice of constants which are in some cases undetectable. [1] https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/152360/should-we-be-using-sha3-2017 https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/152360/should-w...