On 2004-08-13T11:10:05-0500, John Honan wrote: > > Oh I see! And this implies as you would just use a "19-bit" type B in > > place of a "20-bit" type A, as it would cost 2x as much they are > > exactly equivalent with regards to cost & variance. QED. > > > > Adam > > So scheme A (the current scheme) should be okay: > > A. (as in v1) value = claimed_bits if claimed_bits <= measured_bits > > Besides, it would be a real pity to throw away the one time someone > generates a 160-bit stamp by accident!... :-) It doesn't get thrown away either in v0 or v1; it's just not counted for more bits than was intended in v1. -- "When in our age we hear these words: It will be judged by the result--then we know at once with whom we have the honor of speaking. Those who talk this way are a numerous type whom I shall designate under the common name of assistant professors." -- Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling (Wong tr.), III, 112