<p>The malleability problem is not with the hashing function, but with what is being hashed (or not). The hashed data is malleable, not the hash directly.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-02-18T18:07:25.483Z
I'm concerned about the storage requirements (index size, etc) rather than transaction malliability since that really doesn't apply here, as you say.
makerofthings7
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-02-18T23:55:12.570Z
Ah i assumed wrongly... Maybe you should clarify in your question you're looking for storage advantages.
Jannes
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-02-18T17:31:52.680Z
2014-02-18T17:31:52.680Z
Jannes
<p>Edit: In this question I'm looking at storage advantages, and network bandwidth savings.  </p>

<p>Given that the TxID and BlockID uses SHA256 to uniquely identify a transaction (and block) is there any reason that RIPEMD shouldn't be used in a brand new/different alt-coin?</p>

<transactions><alternatives><sha256><ripemd160>
In a perfect world, should RIPE160 be used as the block ID or transaction ID?
makerofthings7
# In a perfect world, should RIPE160 be used as the block ID or transaction ID?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-02-18)

Edit: In this question I'm looking at storage advantages, and network bandwidth savings.

Given that the TxID and BlockID uses SHA256 to uniquely identify a transaction (and block) is there any reason that RIPEMD shouldn't be used in a brand new/different alt-coin?

**Tags:** transactions, alternatives, sha256, ripemd160


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2014-02-18. Score: 1

The malleability problem is not with the hashing function, but with what is being hashed (or not). The hashed data is malleable, not the hash directly.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: I'm concerned about the storage requirements (index size, etc) rather than transaction malliability since that really doesn't apply here, as you say.  
> **username_1**: Ah i assumed wrongly... Maybe you should clarify in your question you're looking for storage advantages.  

---

