Non-cryptographic hashes

[jbenet]

What do we do about non-cryptographic hashes, such as these? Do we include them in the same table?

I'm leaning towards yes.

[jbenet]

I'm leaning towards yes because:

• we already plan on including "the identity hash function", which is not cryptographic.
• it is better than creating another table for a different but equivalent standard.

[RichardLitt]

It is better than creating another table for a different but equivalent standard.

I agree with this.

[jbenet]

So far -- after much discussion with relevant people -- it looks like we will start adding non cryptographic hashes. The well-known hash functions are not more than 16000, and thus 2 bytes are plenty. This is a small price to pay for not having two standards or two different standard tables.

[jbenet]

I'll give a week for people to voice reasonable discontent.

[jbenet]

Okay, we'll do this