> I am likewise perplexed why "cryptographic hash functions are unnecessary in the absence of an attacker" is such a difficult concept for you to grasp.
Because you can't seem to tell the difference between "unnecessary" and "shouldn't be done".
If I build a shed then using larger screws on the door might be unnecessary but it only costs me .2% more and I know it won't fall over.
Using a recent SHA function might be overkill in a non-crypto context but it's high-quality and fast. And there's existing libraries for whatever language you want. Why the hell would anyone use CRC128? I've never even heard of it before.
It's a good hash choice, no matter how unnecessary.
Clearly it's not, because it's both several times slower than the CRC family, and was known to have cryptographic flaws before git was even released. "The worst of both worlds" so to speak...
Because you can't seem to tell the difference between "unnecessary" and "shouldn't be done".
If I build a shed then using larger screws on the door might be unnecessary but it only costs me .2% more and I know it won't fall over.
Using a recent SHA function might be overkill in a non-crypto context but it's high-quality and fast. And there's existing libraries for whatever language you want. Why the hell would anyone use CRC128? I've never even heard of it before.
It's a good hash choice, no matter how unnecessary.