BLAKE3 VS Hashids.java

> might be easier with a public domain license instead of the current ones

There reference implementation is public domain (CC0) or at your choice Apache 2.0

https://github.com/BLAKE3-team/BLAKE3/blob/master/LICENSE

Fyi, blake3 was released in 2019 and should probably be used over blake2 unless you have some strong reason not to. It's basically a reimplementation of blake2 with performance tweaks.

https://github.com/BLAKE3-team/BLAKE3

Many people will argue that today's compilers are so smart/optimized that you'd be a fool to try to outsmart the compiler with asm. I'm not 1 of them, but I know some. IMO it's all a bunch of bullshit, there's a goddamn reason all the cryptocurrency mining CPU/GPU code is all hand-written asm. there's a reason blake3 is written in asm ( https://github.com/BLAKE3-team/BLAKE3/blob/master/c/blake3_sse41_x86-64_windows_msvc.asm ) - but the thing is, 99.99% of the time, life is too short to outsmart the compiler (unless you're Alexander Yee)

I have been trying to optimize my code to create a fast hashing function to create and check b3 file integrity but b3sum is way way faster than my aproach, i have been trying to modify my code acordingly to https://github.com/BLAKE3-team/BLAKE3/blob/master/b3sum/src/main.rs with no luck, so if anyone can give me some tips/clues on how to achieve better speeds it would be incredible. Thx!!

BLAKE3 might be faster than KangarooTwelve and is also an XOF. It doesn't have the benefit of getting a working RFC draft proposal however.

You're saying the hash speed is 133 kB/s? That's extremely slow, for example BLAKE3 achieves 6.8 GB/s which is over 50000 times faster. Nobody wants to use such a slow hash function.

Try this one if you want a smaller, and particularly interesting crate: https://github.com/BLAKE3-team/BLAKE3

blake3 is a cryptographic hashing function, which is used during plotting's "forward propagation" step

BLAKE3 claims to be faster and more secure than both MD5 and SHA1.

More information: https://github.com/BLAKE3-team/BLAKE3

My preference: using traditional incremental numeric IDs and obfuscate them with Hashids (https://hashids.org) when exposed publicly

You basically want Hashids but sequential? Why not simple convert a base 10 (0-9) number to hex? (0-F)

I found hashids [1] to be a great compromise between integer ids in the database and copyable non-enumerable strings on the client.

[1] https://hashids.org/

I wonder how this might compare to just storing regular autoincrementing ints in the database, and converting to/from hashids (https://hashids.org/) at the edge. It eliminates the collision concern and stores more compactly at the cost of a tiny amount of encode/decode when processing requests. You’d want to push it down as close to the database layer as possible to avoid inadvertent int ID leaks; I added native hashids support to clickhouse but I’m not sure what other database support might entail.

Since hashids are not really hashes and are not secure at all this is not even achieved. Hashids can be easily decoded without the salt by a simple brute-force attack described by the authors of hashid themselves right on their website: https://hashids.org/

You don't necessarily need to use UUIDs. You could use something like Hashids to generate random strings from your sequential IDs in a reversible way, so that users can't predict what their values will be, but you can decode them as needed.

You should not use UUIDv4 as a primary key. You can use normal int values and then use hashids to make them safe for URL. UUIDv7 might be good to use as well once they are more widely supported as well.