Re: Use base32?
- From
- Michael Steuer <michael.steuer@constrainttec.com>
- Date
- Mar 20, 2017, 05:58 UTC
- Message-ID
- <1c213acb-1deb-8959-b1f8-28f99974640f@constrainttec.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <27077870-76d9-b45a-5727-c339a3d0ffc8@bu.edu>
On 20/03/2017 16:21, Jason Hennessey wrote:
Show 16 quoted lines
> On Wed, 8 Mar 2017, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>>> Linus Torvalds writes ("Re: RFC: Another proposed hash function transition plan"): > > Of course, having written that, I now realize how it would cause
>>>> problems for the usual shit-for-brains case-insensitive
>> filesystems. > > So I guess base64 encoding doesn't work well for that
>> reason.
>> Given that the idea was to encode the new hash in base64 or base85, we
>> *are* talking about an encoding. In that respect, yes, it can be whatever
>> encoding we like, and Linus just made a good point (with unnecessary foul
>> language) of explaining why base64/base85 is not that encoding.
> Since the hash format is switching anyway, how about using base32
> instead of hex?
>
> Still get a 20% space savings over hex (minus a little for padding), and
> it's guaranteed to be a single case.
> Jason
>If base32 is being considered, I'd suggest the "base32hex" variant, which uses the same amount of space.