-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 113
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Is this moot for functions whose output already includes these extra params? #72
Comments
you could do it, just to be consistent. but you dont get much value if you're only storing bcrypt hashes |
@jbenet Could do what? Implement bcrypt in multihash? |
TLDR:I find lots of utility in the "to be consistent" argument.. If this is as simple as making a pull request against the multicodec table - please let me know, I will do so, and we can close this issue. BackgroundIf a project that is looking to adopt multihash as "standard for the project", which one might want to do if for no other reason than to have a system that accommodates different hash scheme - and can, at some later date migrate to a "more secure" hash - let alone for all the reasons described in the To adopt this a the "standard way we hash" - it would be nice if ( NOTE: I just made those up - please take those as potentially terrible examples to use in practice - but a reasonable illustration of pairing a work factor and algorithm name.) |
Like bcrypt for example where the output already includes the work factor:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: