I just thought this would be an argument why "textual" fingerprints like SHA256:s6N0OwlTDKjDez98kZRwUGZbTYaQUArv+EYC6sigFwA ben@eshwil are superior to the

I just thought this would be an argument why "textual" fingerprints like SHA256:s6N0OwlTDKjDez98kZRwUGZbTYaQUArv+EYC6sigFwA ben@eshwil are superior to the "visualized" fingerprints: They are harder to imitate by an attacker. However, I realized this argument is invalid: If you -- as a human -- compare two fingerprints by just looking at parts of the texts/image, you haven't done a full verification and thus are vulnerable. Therefore, in principle, the kind of key authentification how it is done in modern smartphone messengers (making a photo of a visual key (encoded in a QR code or similar) where the smartphone then verifies every single bit) is the right way to go when it comes to fingerprint verification. Humans are too impatient and too inaccurate for this job.