3 ms·
> Not to nitpick but BLAKE was the SHA3 finalist, not BLAKE2 which is an improvement. To add to this: BLAKE2 is derived from BLAKE only, whereas BLAKE3 is deri
by johnisgood 5y ago
> Not to nitpick but BLAKE was the SHA3 finalist, not BLAKE2 which is an improvement.
To add to this: BLAKE2 is derived from BLAKE only, whereas BLAKE3 is derived from Bao AND BLAKE2.
> Why kernel devs didn't go with BLAKE3, I can't say.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29748581 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29748581
- loeg 5y agoYour doubly linked comment (adrian_b’s remark) makes the incorrect assertion that the only reason blake3 is faster than blake2 is parallelism; this is objectively false. Blake3 uses fewer rounds (7x2) of the Chacha primitive than blake2 (10x2). I think tptacek has it right: this thing is used very infrequently (period 300 seconds) and blake2 was already in the kernel, so they just reused it. It’s adequately fast, even if blake3 would be marginally faster.
- johnisgood 5y agoI do not think that he claimed that the reason is performance, but regardless, I gave other reasons besides performance, too, including "blake2 was already in the kernel, so they just reused it". I said: "BLAKE2 is already in the kernel (with tests and everything), while BLAKE3 is not (at all)".
- loeg 5y agoYes, we agree here.