[remcob]

> This is a hash designed for non-cryptographic use

The Readme specifically says "you can modify it to yield 128-bits or more if you want a cryptographically secure hash."

Which is a problematic statement, because it is not designed for cryptography even if you extended the output to 256 bit. It's not the output length that makes it cryptographicaly secure. (Rather it's the difference between "you won't find collisions by accident" and "you won't find collisions even if you try really hard using very sophisticated math", but there are more requirements.)

This is similar to the issues with a different hash by the same Github user posted two weeks ago:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23103521

Making fast non-cryptographic hash functions is a fun challenge and I appreciate the projects, but please, please do not make any claims about cryptographic properties!

[fantastisch]

you need others to not make crypto claims, but you're so sure making your crypto claim that it's not cryptographic.

it's always easy to front as an expert spectator and believe others work is no good. why don't you back it up with some effort?

I believe it is a crypto hash. so..a fun challenge?

how about this for a fun challenge, why don't you post a cryptanalysis and I'll link it from the README.

Thanks for the beamsplitter link!

maybe it is designed as a crypto hash