Re: A Survey of ILP Account Identifiers? from Melvin Carvalho on 2016-12-11 (public-interledger@w3.org from December 2016)

From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2016 02:16:41 +0100
To: David Nicol <davidnicol@gmail.com>
Cc: Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>, David Fuelling <dfuelling@sappenin.com>, Interledger Community Group <public-interledger@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CAKaEYhK1tgVJf=sT2TuorMbKC=tTvftc8ZUbwH6Nv6vBNGTbyg@mail.gmail.com>

On 11 December 2016 at 02:06, David Nicol <davidnicol@gmail.com> wrote:

> FWIW, my current thoughts on this are to use SHA1 hashes for
> everything. Following attempting to allow various sorts of identities
> with "identity strings," normalizing on hashes of some constant
> followed by the identifying string gives an interchangable 160-bit
> token that can be used without worrying about what it represents until
> you care.
>

In what context do you want to use SHA1 hashes?

Is there a path to interoperability?

Received on Sunday, 11 December 2016 01:17:14 UTC