When comparing SHA-3 to BLAKE1, it's important to consider several aspects such as their design principles, security, performance, and specific use cases. Here's a detailed comparison:

Design Principles

• SHA-3: Also known as Keccak, SHA-3 is a cryptographic hash function chosen by NIST as the winner of the SHA-3 competition to become the Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) SHA-3 standard. Its design is significantly different from that of SHA-1 and SHA-2, using a sponge construction that is considered to offer strong security properties.
• BLAKE1: BLAKE is a cryptographic hash function that was a finalist in the NIST hash function competition but was not selected as the winner. BLAKE1 is known for its speed and simplicity. Its design is somewhat similar to that of SHA-2 but with important differences that make it faster in software implementations. Later, BLAKE2, an improved version of BLAKE1, was developed to offer even better performance and security.

Security

• SHA-3: Offers a high level of security and is designed to avoid the vulnerabilities found in SHA-1 and SHA-2 (though, as of my last update, no significant vulnerabilities have been found in SHA-2). SHA-3's sponge construction allows for variable output lengths and has resistance against length extension attacks.
• BLAKE1: Also offers a high level of security and was considered secure during the NIST competition, with no significant vulnerabilities identified. Its design makes it resistant to length extension attacks and other common cryptographic hash function vulnerabilities.

Performance

• SHA-3: Generally slower than SHA-2 in software implementations due to its unique sponge construction. Its performance can be better in hardware implementations. SHA-3's speed can vary depending on the specific variant (e.g., SHA3-256, SHA3-512) and the platform it's running on.
• BLAKE1: Known for its high performance in software, often outperforming SHA-2 and even SHA-1 in some implementations. The design choices in BLAKE1, such as the use of fast ChaCha stream cipher operations, contribute to its efficiency.

Use Cases

• SHA-3: Ideal for applications where a new, independently designed hash function is desired, providing a security margin against attacks that might affect SHA-2. Its flexibility in output length makes it suitable for a wide range of applications, including digital signatures, message integrity, and random number generation.
• BLAKE1: Suitable for applications that require high-speed cryptographic hashing, where the data to be hashed is not extremely large. Even though BLAKE1 is secure and efficient, BLAKE2 is more commonly recommended for new applications due to its improved performance and security features.

Conclusion

Both SHA-3 and BLAKE1 are secure and efficient cryptographic hash functions, each with its own strengths. SHA-3 is part of the SHA family with a unique design offering robust security, while BLAKE1 is known for its speed and was a strong contender in the NIST competition. The choice between them would depend on the specific requirements of the application, such as the need for speed, security, or compliance with certain standards. For new projects, it's also worth considering BLAKE2 as an alternative to BLAKE1 due to its enhancements.