Thanks for adding that clarification that yes it includes two hashes: one not meant as a crypto hash; one proposed to be a cryptohash. The text in the README me

Thanks for adding that clarification that yes it includes two hashes: one not meant as a crypto hash; one proposed to be a cryptohash. The text in the README means it (the second one) is proposed as a crypto-hash. But the wording you used looks unclear, is that what we really have in there? edit: AH, I see you mean in the comparison table. Yeah that wording could be improved. I'll change it now. The rest of the text is hopefully clearer: "Consider it (rainstorm) experimental, but designed to be secure. Note on Cryptographic Intent: Rainstorm's design includes concepts from cryptographic hashing, but without formal analysis, it should not be considered secure. Feedback and analysis are welcome." Although without a bunch of accepted analyses people shouldn't trust a secure cryptohash that merely claims to be a secure cryptohash - which this doesn't claim. It is funny people get obsessed with wording when what's really needed is evidence. I will take a look at the wording again now and if there's any wording that's insufficiently clear that rainstorm is proposed as a crypto-hash and requires analysis, I'll update such wording.