From: rsbecker@nexbridge.com
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2023 15:56:35 GMT
Subject: RE: Gitorious should use CRC128 / 256 / 512 instead of SHA-1
Message-ID: <00b201d92767$a0403ee0$e0c0bca0$@nexbridge.com>
In-Reply-To: <6061d012-13b7-ca4b-5556-70875b65c887@selasky.org>

On January 13, 2023 10:50 AM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
>On 1/13/23 16:45, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
>> I think you're misunderstanding some of the core principles of git.
>
>Maybe, I'm usually commandering git via the terminal.
>
>But if you say you can already edit stuff, why does the commit hash need to be
>cryptographic? I don't get that part. Yeah, I think of git commits like blockchain.

git is using SHA1/SHA256 (which happen to be coincidentally cryptographic) as message digests with a very low probability of collisions when the hashes are computed. There is never a situation, implied by cryptography, where there is a decode of a git hash.  In order to make git a blockchain, you would need to implement central signing authorities, which would require a fork if the signature mechanism changes. The signature mechanism (SSH, GPG) is distinct from hash computation in git's trees, but depends on hash integrity.