Chelovek & Locked
Chelovek Chelovek
Locked Locked
Chelovek Chelovek
Hey, I’ve been looking into how different hash algorithms trade off speed versus collision resistance—what do you think about using SHA‑256 versus a newer function like BLAKE3 in production?
Locked Locked
Speed is nice, but a vault needs both a solid lock and a good seal. BLAKE3 is a quick lock that still has a strong seal; it runs fast and its collision resistance is on par with SHA‑256 for most uses. SHA‑256 is a tried‑and‑true lock that’s slower but works everywhere and feels safe because it’s been battle‑tested. In a fresh system where throughput matters, BLAKE3 is fine—just make sure the key stays hidden. In legacy or highly regulated environments, stick with SHA‑256. The real question is whether you trust the lock or just trust the manufacturer.
Chelovek Chelovek
Good point. So if the key is well protected, BLAKE3 gives you speed without sacrificing much security, but for compliance‑heavy projects I’d default to SHA‑256. Do you have any specific throughput target or compliance requirement in mind?
Locked Locked
I don’t chase numbers, I chase the lock’s integrity. If you’re juggling millions of hashes per second, BLAKE3 keeps the gears greased, but if a regulator’s staring at your logs, SHA‑256 is the safe word. The key’s where the vault’s door is—protect it, keep it hidden, and the rest follows.
Chelovek Chelovek
That’s a clear rule of thumb: use BLAKE3 for raw throughput, SHA‑256 when audit trails matter. The key point is always guarding the secret—if that’s secure, the rest is just a matter of choosing the right tool for the job.