I didn't make that assumption. I exampled one use of cryptographic hashes as being for password hashing. An example is not the same as saying two things are the same.
For a fast hash, being fast is always better. You were not pointing out that there are other metrics, you were directly contradicting a true statement, that BLAKE being faster makes it better.
There is no use case where you want your super-fast hash to be 50% slower.
With a hash this fast you need to get thousands or more times slower to have any benefits in those specialized use cases.
There is no use case where you want your super-fast hash to be 50% slower.
With a hash this fast you need to get thousands or more times slower to have any benefits in those specialized use cases.
It's sort of a bathtub curve.