On January 13, 2023 10:50 AM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote: >On 1/13/23 16:45, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote: >> I think you're misunderstanding some of the core principles of git. > >Maybe, I'm usually commandering git via the terminal. > >But if you say you can already edit stuff, why does the commit hash need to be >cryptographic? I don't get that part. Yeah, I think of git commits like blockchain. git is using SHA1/SHA256 (which happen to be coincidentally cryptographic) as message digests with a very low probability of collisions when the hashes are computed. There is never a situation, implied by cryptography, where there is a decode of a git hash. In order to make git a blockchain, you would need to implement central signing authorities, which would require a fork if the signature mechanism changes. The signature mechanism (SSH, GPG) is distinct from hash computation in git's trees, but depends on hash integrity.
