Hi Joel,
Thanks for all the info. Great stuff!
<< Needless to say, none of this implies that synonyms fail to exist
(see previous note), but simply that it should be infeasibly hard
to construct a synonym for a given input. >>
OK, so the only thing we have to do, if I understand things correctl
> Well, "infeasibly hard" means the probability that a random message
> would have the same checksum should be about 6.84227765783589E-49
> and you shouldn't be able to do better crafting one yourself.
>
> The issue is not that synonyms won't happen, but that they're
> unlikely and you can't pred
I had thought of using checksum/secure as an ID some time back. But the
synonym possibility made be nervous. Why?
(1) Such a chance is greater than zero
(2) I believe that Murphy's law is understated.
(3) I've programming so long I'm automatically suspicious of possibilities
:)
> Needless to say,
Hi, again, Gregg,
Gregg Irwin wrote:
>
> I don't know if "cryptographically secure" equates to
> "universally unique", but I'd be glad if it did. :)
>
(Should have checked before the previous note...) CHECKSUM/SECURE
is represented as being SHA, which does produce a 160-bit "secure"
hash of i
Hi, Gregg,
Gregg Irwin wrote:
>
> Hi Pekr,
>
> << checksum/secure :-) >>
>
> I don't know if "cryptographically secure" equates to
> "universally unique", but I'd be glad if it did. :)
>
Absent documentation, who knows (?), but not likely. By the
pigeonhole principle, any function that
