From: Michael Steuer Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 05:58:06 GMT Subject: Re: Use base32? 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: > 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.