[Cryptography] BLAKE2: "Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger" Than MD5

ianG iang at iang.org
Tue Mar 25 09:36:26 EDT 2014

On 24/03/2014 23:20 pm, Jerry Leichter wrote:

> One of the things we in computer science in general have been very bad at is understanding, or even keeping track of, our own history.
> While it's hardly ideal, the best way we have to estimate the longevity of our artifacts it to look at the history of related artifacts.  CS tends to view every new advance as ab initio - all that old crud is now obsolete and not worth thinking about.  I was quite shocked at myself for never having thought about how long cryptosystems past had actually survived in the real world.  I probably could not have given a reasonable quick estimate for any of these.
> Of course, the push for "standards" - and particular the push for *one* standard algorithm of each class - tends to push those that didn't make it to the top out of the picture.  That makes it even harder to learn from the mistakes - and successes - of the past.

You should try working in cryptocurrencies !

(James, Zooko and Bill and perhaps others will recall when they were
called ecash...)

> I'd love to see your history published.  It will be a valuable reference.


More information about the cryptography mailing list