Often, yes. But also consider the SHA-3 competition.
BLAKE2 seems more widely used than what was chosen for SHA-3 (Keccak). What was submitted for the SHA-3 competition was BLAKE1 (it didn't have a number back then but I think this is clearer) so it's not like NIST said that Keccak is better than BLAKE2, they only said it's better than BLAKE1 (per their requirements, which are unlikely to align with your requirements because of the heavy weighing of speed-in-hardware), but still this is an example of a widely used algorithm that is not standardized.
> how often do you see Serpent being mentioned, despite it having a larger security margin than Rijndael
The goal of an encryption algorithm is not only to be secure. Sure, that has to be a given: nobody is going to use a broken algorithm when given a choice. But when you have two secure options, the more efficient one is the one to choose. You could use a 32k RSA key just to be sure, or a 4k RSA key which (to the best of my knowledge) everyone considers safe until quantum. (After quantum, you need something like a 1TB key, as djb humorously proposed.)
Wikipedia article on Serpent: "The 32 rounds mean that Serpent has a higher security margin than Rijndael; however, Rijndael with 10 rounds is faster and easier to implement for small blocks."
I don't know that nobody talks about Serpent solely because it was not chosen as winner. It may just be that Rijndael with 256-bit keys is universally considered secure and is more efficient at doing its job.
Re: Serpent, there are many things to unpack here but, in summary, you don't know a priori how large of a security margin you need (given the primary function of a cipher, you want to pick the conservative option), efficiency concerns become much less relevant with hardware-accelerated implementations and years of Moore's law performance uplifts, low-power devices can take advantage of much lighter algorithms than Rijndael OR Serpent, ease of implementation does not equal ease of correct/secure implementation vis-a-vis side channel attacks, and certainly if Serpent was chosen you wouldn't see Rijndael talked about much.
Speculatively, if SHA2 is broken without breaking Merkle-Damgard hashes in general, Blake2/3 could well become SHA4.
Ah, maybe my experience is biased then. I keep coming across BLAKE2 implementations, but rarely hear so much as people considering to use SHA-3 somewhere. If anyone has actual numbers on this, that would be interesting.
It would be good if SHA-3 is being used because then chip makers have a reason to bake it into their hardware, which is exactly where the biggest gain over SHA-2 is expected. If that happens, and all else being equal (no cracks appear in Keccak), I'd be surprised if BLAKE2 remains as popular!
> you don't know a priori how large of a security margin you need
True, so this can be argued to be an educated guess at first. But then confidence increases over time. It seems to be expected that, more than 20 years later, people aren't considering Serpent anymore. Is it because it wasn't chosen as AES? Certainly partially, but BLAKE2 (I'll admit it does seem like an outlier) likely will still be talked about in the future so standardization is not the only factor.
I didn't see actual benchmarks, but Serpent sounds at least three times slower than Rijndael for, by now, no tangible benefit. What would be interesting is if there were AES competitors that are also fully unbroken and are more efficient than Rijndael, or easier to implement, etc.
The real reason I would have liked that to be the case is so that one could use WebAuthn and Subtle Web Crypto to sign things and have the blockchain natively verify the signature.
As it is, I am hoping that EVM will roll out a precompiled signature verifier for secp256r, which is on the roadmap — they say!
Work is also being done on SNARK-based cross-curve signature verification
But I fully agree, especially with the growing popularity of account abstraction, the EVM desperately needs a secp256r1 precompile!
You can read the original report on the candidates: https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/jres/106/3/j63nec.pdf
To save you some time, one software evaluation is on page 531. Serpent performs worse in software than Rijndael (AES) just about everywhere (note they use categories rather than precise metrics, but you can dig into that if you want). By contrast, one hardware evaluation is on page 539. Serpent has the highest throughput for the lowest "area" i.e. required. These results repeat on p541.
So it depends on whether you are comparing a software or hardware implementation.
There's also BLAKE3 and it is amazing. How is its adoption going?
BUT. On security margins, you could argue the Serpent designers were too conservative: https://eprint.iacr.org/2019/1492 It is also true that cryptanalytic attacks appear to fare slightly better against AES than Serpent. What does this mean? A brute force attack has the same number of operations as the claimed security level, say, 2^128 for 128-bit. An attack is something better than this: fewer operations. All of the attacks we know about achieve slightly less than this security level - which is nonetheless still impossible to do - but that comes at a cost: they need an infeasible amount of memory. In terms of numbers: 9000 TB to reduce 2^128 to 2^126 against full-round AES according to a quick check of wikipedia. For reference, the lightweight crypto competition considered 2^112 to be sufficient margin. 2^126 is still impossible.
In practice, the difference between Serpent and AES in terms of cryptanalytic security is meaningless. It is not an example of NIST picking a weaker algorithm deliberately, or I would argue, even unintentionally. It (AES) was faster when implemented in software for the 32-bit world that seemed to be the PC market at the time.
Regardless, the comparison wasn't intended to argue for a meaningful difference in security margin, but to show that that the winner of the competition, well, wins (in adoption).
Thanks for digging that paper out again. It is really telling that AES only gets a bit of a bump (10-30%) while the other ones gain like 2x or more.
I was about to comment that the competitors to AES were definitely too conservative, and it bit them because of how much slower it made them in software and larger in hardware.
Almost all of these downsides are helpful for password has validation function like bcrypt() because there is nothing to an attacker can to guess much faster than a desktop CPU.
Blowfish was a good cipher at a time when CPUs lacked dedicated trustworthy crypto engines, wide and deep OoO execution capability, and packed-SIMD support. AES and SHA1/2 are commonly implemented in hardware on modern server, desktop and mobile CPUs. Where hardware offloading isn't available ciphers can take advantage of OoO and SIMD to perform vastly more useful work per cycle than stalling on memory accesses.