4 ms·
These reasons don't matter. What matters is that you use a widely used hash function through a widely used software library. Most security issues are implementa
by dionyziz 13y ago
These reasons don't matter. What matters is that you use a widely used hash function through a widely used software library. Most security issues are implementation-related, not cryptography-related. And if there are problems with a scheme, more people should look for them. SHA2/3 are better options under this light.
- rjzzleep 13y agosha2 based, and faster than md5? do you really not see the value in this? sure you wouldn't want to use this your own coin, because of say asic, and gpu miners, and your saltless password hash for bruteforcing issues. but databases, filesystems, checksums for packages, git(to be fair, they're all some sort of storage systems) by the definition you said above we would still be using md5 in everything.
- vbuterin 13y agoActually, even in coins fast hashes have their place (specifically, in Merkle trees; we're using SHA3 in Ethereum precisely because computers will have hardware modules for it), and for mining you don't want to be using anything that's classified as a hash function anyway.
- dionyziz 13y agomd5 is fine for filesystems and databases. I'm talking about using hashes for cryptographic purposes.
- Pacabel 13y agoHow do you propose that new algorithms become "widely used" if nobody should use them until they are "widely used"?
- dionyziz 13y agoStandardization is a way. SHA2 and SHA3 are standardized. Unfortunately, with the recent RSA shortcomings, this may no longer be trustable.