News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Nanosecond timestamp collisions are common. Parent comment

Re:Nanosecond timestamp collisions are common by michaelt on Friday July 21, 2023 @04:18AM (#36811369)
Ah but you see, UUIDs are web scale.

And by web scale, I mean they're too big to exchange by any offline channel.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nanosecond timestamp collisions are common by Tade0 on Friday July 21, 2023 @04:29AM (#36811428)
It's 128 bits vs 64 bits - not really that much of a difference.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nanosecond timestamp collisions are common by SV_BubbleTime on Friday July 21, 2023 @12:21PM (#36815727)
FWIW… we’re using UUIDv7s over BLE.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nanosecond timestamp collisions are common by _flux on Friday July 21, 2023 @03:24PM (#36818333)
Should you, though? BLE itself uses UUIDs, but the ones it uses are in a shortened format just because the BLE frames are small and the protocol is not too fast.

Granted I've even used JSON over GATT so maybe I should keep my mouth shut :).

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nanosecond timestamp collisions are common by SV_BubbleTime on Friday July 21, 2023 @03:30PM (#36818411)
It’s for an auth use. And at least we’re using CBOR. But I get your point.
[ Parent | on HN ]