On 05-08-13 02:16, Ben Hutchings wrote:Simple mathematics.
> On Sun, 2013-08-04 at 16:45 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> On 03-08-13 13:45, Ondřej Surý wrote:
>>> I think it's useless to upgrade to SHA512 (or SHA-3),
>> It's never useless to upgrade to a stronger hash.
>> The cost might outweight the benefit, yes. But that's a different matter.
> What makes you think these are stronger?
To me, a "strong hash" is a hash for which collisions are unlikely.
A SHA512 hash is longer than a SHA1 hash. Therefore it has more bits.
Therefore it has more possible values, which decreases the likelihood
that two collections of bits will produce the same hash value by accident.