Robert Kieffer

> any future spec may specify that if they want to use 111 the next bit should be set to 1 making 1111 (F) @kyzer-davis this was the missing piece...

@bradleypeabody: I recognize the value of a first-principles take on this, I just don't believe it's warranted at this time. If we were creating a radically new standard that deprecated...

@sergeyprokhorenko Generally speaking, the problem with central authorities is that they require a complex architecture with requirements that are likely to be out of scope of a timestamp-based format. We'd...

@sergeyprokhorenko What you're describing has nothing to do with guaranteeing uniqueness via the use of a central authority.

We disagree. Central authorities serve the entire "Universe" (first "U" of UUID). Your shared knowledge example seems to be implicitly scoped to the "universe" (little "u") of systems that care...

> UUIDs are designed to displace compound business keys UUIDs are designed to provide IDs that satisfy certain key criteria. The extent to which such criteria make them preferable over...

Also, what does it mean to mark a database table as "unsafe"? Google doesn't have much to say on the subject, other than MSSQL's `TRUSTWORTHY` database attribute.

My main concern is that this starts to populate the 0b111 variant space, which I'd rather avoid. > The primary use case of the Del UUID is as a sentinel...

> A counter MAY be placed instead of... Is there any benefit to this over simply treating the entire `rand` field as a counter, the way ULID does? In which...

> 1. The random part of ULID is almost frozen within every millisecond while it's used as a counter. Therefore it's very easy to guess the next or previous ULID....