4 ms·

Good feedback. Thanks tpetry as well. I agree about the tag. It's a cultural oversight that all secure hashes aren't labelled as such. When one is used it ought

• Dylan16807 6y ago
  It rarely matters, and that's not an insignificant amount of overhead, especially because you're putting those wasteful slashes in https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1220286/Sir-Tim-Berners-Lee-admits-forward-slashes-web-address-mistake.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1220286/Sir-...
• sneak 6y ago
  Are you familiar with multihash (which is used extensively in ipfs)? It’s an open standard and library and does exactly this (though the prefix tag itself is not human readable unless you are weird like us). I use it in my projects when I need to serialize hashes, as it has nice go and javascript libraries.
• jmiserez 6y ago
  There's no need to identify the hash algorithm unless multiple versions are used in the same context, which is rarely the case and often defeats the purpose of using a hash in the first place.
  • michaelt 6y ago
    Loads of things have multiple hash options - from /etc/shadow supporting 6 different password hashes, to Maven storing foo.jar alongside foo.jar.md5 and foo.jar.sha1 and apt-get providing both an MD5sum and a SHA256 in the package index, to TLS and SSH and GPG supporting multiple algorithms for compatibility. None of them do it with "sha1://" though...