3 ms·
I love the performance of blake3 but my understanding is it's still a bit of the new kid on the block. Blake2 is a SHA-3 finalist so should be perfectly suffici
by kortex 4y ago
I love the performance of blake3 but my understanding is it's still a bit of the new kid on the block. Blake2 is a SHA-3 finalist so should be perfectly sufficient, plus it has variable digest sizes, reasonably fast, and other nice features.
Either way, anything relying on hashes for data integrity should at least be flexible to the option of multiple hash algos. But with git, it's going to be hard enough as is to change to SHA-256, and I don't know how parametric it'll be.
- notfed 4y agoActually, BLAKE2 was not a SHA-3 finalist, BLAKE was. Also, BLAKE3 is so significantly faster than it's probably worth waiting for (waiting for it to get vetted cryptanalysis-wise).