These estimates of security should be considered an upper bound, not a lower bound or average. In other words,
> If the time that it will take to break the encryption by brute force is significantly longer than your expected remaining lifespan
....just because we don't know about a vulnerability in SHA-3 today doesn't mean that we won't in ten years. SHA-1 and SHA-2 were once thought to be secure, and they may yet be even more broken than we realize.
Furthermore, that also makes a major assumption about computing hardware. Particularly with the (possible) advent of quantum computing and the possibilities that large-scale quantum computing would provide, I think it's impossible for anybody to do more than speculate about the future like that.
> If the time that it will take to break the encryption by brute force is significantly longer than your expected remaining lifespan
....just because we don't know about a vulnerability in SHA-3 today doesn't mean that we won't in ten years. SHA-1 and SHA-2 were once thought to be secure, and they may yet be even more broken than we realize.
Furthermore, that also makes a major assumption about computing hardware. Particularly with the (possible) advent of quantum computing and the possibilities that large-scale quantum computing would provide, I think it's impossible for anybody to do more than speculate about the future like that.