Re: Why BLAKE2?

Markus Trippelsdorf writes ("Re: Why BLAKE2?"):

On 2017.02.27 at 13:00 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:

quoted

For brevity I will write `SHA' for hashing with SHA-1, using current
unqualified object names, and `BLAKE' for hasing with BLAKE2b, using
H<hex> object names.

Why do you choose BLAKE2? SHA-2 is generally considered still fine and
would be the obvious choice. And if you want to be adventurous then
SHA-3 (Keccak) would be the next logical candidate.

I don't have a strong opinion.  Keccak would be fine too.
We should probably avoid SHA-2.

The main point of my posting was not to argue in favour of a
particular hash function :-).

Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson [off-list ref]   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.