Wouldn’t it be far easier to just go with SHA3 512 from the beginning and forget about it? Given marketing optics alone you end up with the situation of a 256bit Safe Network, and some competitive forker’s 512bit “Safer Network”. I could be wrong but unless the devs are doing XOR addressing different than what I’m familiar with, it shouldn’t really matter for routing performance. The only concern I can think of with regard to SHA3 256 vs. SHA3 512 is software performance on mobile/Arm devices. However, there are asics now that implement all this in hardware at hyper speed. And mobiles are quite a bit faster now than ~2 years ago when the change was made. I think it is reasonable to prioritize/optimize for a hardware platform that consists of x86 desktop/laptop/server tech. I don’t see why you/we would want to reduce network capacity because of the shortcomings of a raspberry pi in 2016. Instincts tell me that network latency is going to be the biggest performance bottleneck for everyday mobile clients, not hash rate.
Thanks for the link to the github changes. Good to know when and where the change was made. Yes, seems like changes in central code were easy. However, I don’t think the same goes for a complete network upgrade in the future. Someone please point out if my apprehensions are misconceptions.