3 ms·
In what sense is it not a literal hash? Because it had the prefix at the start to specify what hash to use and the length?
by drdeca 5y ago
In what sense is it not a literal hash? Because it had the prefix at the start to specify what hash to use and the length?
- namibj 5y agoBecause it chunks, it's more similar to a merkle tree than a plain hash.
- drdeca 5y agoThanks, I didn’t think of that
- sodality2 5y ago"of the content" meaning it's not just a sha-N of the file. Unless I misremember the IPFS protocol.
- drdeca 5y agoThanks! I was thinking too vaguely of “hash”, and didn’t think about the requirement that the hash of something large and the hash of that thing but with a big chunk of it replaced with , uh, the hash or some kind of digest of that large bit, be different.