[Http-crcsync] General comments on crcsync document
Gervase Markham
gerv at mozilla.org
Tue Jul 14 07:46:13 EDT 2009
On 13/07/09 10:11, Patrick McManus wrote:
> So yes, if you use 32 bits and repeat that process for 40 blocks in a
> transaction and then have several dozen million transactions the odds
> are good that one person will have the sha-256 invalidate their
> transaction and have to repeat what was a stateless non reliable
> transaction (i.e. HTTP) anyhow. That sounds ok to me all things
> considered.
Yes - if the only downside of a shorter hash is a slightly increased
possibility of having to repeat the transaction, then it's definitely a
win. If I understand (and I may not), going from 60-ish bits to 32 bits
surely lets you fit twice as many hashes into our magic 2500 bytes?
That's got to be an enormous gain.
Gerv
More information about the Http-crcsync
mailing list