Use base32?

From: Jason Hennessey <henn@bu.edu>
Date: Mar 20, 2017, 05:21 UTC
Message-ID: <27077870-76d9-b45a-5727-c339a3d0ffc8@bu.edu>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1703081638010.3767@virtualbox>

On Wed, 8 Mar 2017, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

Show 8 quoted lines

> > 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