Earlier quoted context omitted.
There might not be 2^256 distinguishable objects but maybe someone can come up with 2^16 distinguishable objects and just string 16 of them together. If there is one character off in a string of 40 hexadecimal characters it is hard to notice but that would be easier to detect in a set of 16 symbols.
Memorizing order in a set of 16 similar objects is too difficult for me
Representing SHA-256 Hashes as Avatars
71–75 of 75 posts
Re: Representing SHA-256 Hashes as Avatars
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
Memorizing order in a set of 16 similar objects is too difficult for me
I don't think you would need to memorize the order, just compare them side by side to check that they are the same.
Re: Representing SHA-256 Hashes as Avatars
#73Re: Representing SHA-256 Hashes as Avatars
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's no need to distinguish between every object at every comparison. In most applications, you'll only be comparing a few dozen avatars with each other.
In the adversarial case, yes, there is. I agree that avatars help you distinguish among ~a dozen users; what they don't do is provide strong guarantees that the person you're talking to actually is who they claim to be.
Re: Representing SHA-256 Hashes as Avatars
#75Urbit also developed a solution for turning a number into an avatar, although theirs only have 32 bits of entropy, and to be honest there are many that are difficult to tell apart: https://urbit.org/blog/creating-sigils/
these are pretty. Do you have any idea if there is a way to use the library with other data (hashes) other than the Urbit 'names' or what it is?
Urbit names are just another representation of a 32-bit number, like the sigils. You can use any 32-bit number as the "seed" for a sigil.