- From: David Nicol <davidnicol@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2016 14:50:18 -0600
- To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Cc: Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>, David Fuelling <dfuelling@sappenin.com>, Interledger Community Group <public-interledger@w3.org>
On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 2:51 AM, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11 December 2016 at 06:53, David Nicol <davidnicol@gmail.com> wrote: >> > In what context do you want to use SHA1 hashes? >> >> Mainline DHT cloud storage. >> >> > Is there a path to interoperability? >> >> Thanks to the interledger protocol project, ABSOLUTELY. > > > Could you elaborate? Uh, I'd rather finish my prototype first > So if I can understand the DHT cloud storage you are working on denotes > users with a sha1 hash (or is it files too?) It's everything -- everything gets a 160-bit handle to itself, as if all nodes are coexisting with a shared memory. > PS git uses SHA-1 too for files Yes of course; SHA1 is adequate for all practical purposes: the collision risk is small enough. > I am also working on distributed cloud storage but using http URIs as it has > the advantage of a large network effect. As does Mainline DHT. > Which systems have a path to interoperability, the cloud storage you > mention, the web based one I mention and ILP -- how does ILP leverage SHA-1? ILP, as a specification, needn't mandate implementation-specific details. As long as its agnostic to identity strings, using the 20-byte hash in an implementation would be equivalent to referring to an object by a memory pointer, while using the string would be equivalent to passing objects in some kind of marshalled form. From outside of the implementation, there should be no difference.
Received on Sunday, 11 December 2016 20:50:46 UTC