[Cryptography] Is there any advantage to canonical fingerprints.

Phillip Hallam-Baker phill at hallambaker.com
Mon Oct 2 19:56:20 EDT 2017

On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Christian Huitema <huitema at huitema.net>

> On 10/2/2017 11:05 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> So I was working on my UDF fingerprint scheme. Using base32 to encode a
> fingerprint and adding an 8 byte version prefix means that a fingerprint
> with a 117 bit work factor looks like this:
> Its not bad but how about we ease up on the work factor. The absolute
> minimum I would want to have is 92 bits.
> Now suppose that the first 25 bits of the fingerprint are zeros. The 92
> bit fingerprint that would look like this:
> Now looks like this:
> Both the idea and the implementation are very close to the "call signs"
> system that I worked on with Kim Cameron and Josh Benaloh. Too bad that we
> failed to publish an academic paper, and that the best description is in
> the patent -- https://www.google.com.au/patents/US7929689.

​Ah now I remember why I didn't do it this way.​ We talked about it, i
looked at the patent and thought, nope not doing that, then seem to have
re-invented it when I came to implement. Ooops!

9 Jun 2015 FP Expired due to failure to pay maintenance fee
Effective date: 20150419​

So looks like you have won yourself a citation in my draft :)​
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/attachments/20171002/6f97ebe9/attachment.html>

More information about the cryptography mailing list