Compare — the cryptographic standards and the local content-address
The honest question is not "which is best" — it is "what is each for." This table puts the deposit's content-address next to the identity, hashing, authentication, and messaging standards, one factual property per column. Read the deposit's row against the others.
| Scheme | Deterministic | Keyed / secret | Cryptographically secure | Hides content | Detects tampering | Public & reproducible | Size | Status | Purpose |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UUID v4 (random)RFC 9562 | ✗ | ✗ | — | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | 122-bit | current | random identifier |
| UUID v5 (SHA-1)namespaced | ✓ | ✗ | △ | ✗ | △ | ✓ | 122-bit | SHA-1 broken (SHAttered) | namespaced identifier |
| SHA-256FIPS 180-4 | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | 256-bit | current | integrity digest |
| HMAC-SHA-256RFC 2104 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | 256-bit | current | message authentication |
| AES-256-GCMFIPS 197 | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | variable | current | confidentiality + auth |
| Signal (E2E)X3DH + Double Ratchet | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | variable | current | secure messaging |
| MD5RFC 1321 | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | △ | ✓ | 128-bit | broken (collisions) | legacy digest |
| toUuid — this depositFNV-1a, content-address | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | 122-bit | non-cryptographic by design | content-addressing / identity |
✓ yes · ✗ no · △ qualified · — not applicable
d9eed81c-70a2-8a1e-b49c-a2c8fcd09eb6The deposit's row is honest about being non-cryptographic: its FNV-1a hash offers no secrecy and would fall at once to an adversary — but it never claimed secrecy. It does not lose the security race; it is not in it. It is a public, reproducible content-address — quantum in structure (a receipted set of 7-dimensional perspectives), computed classically. For confidentiality, authentication, or secure messaging, the standards above are the right tools; the deposit does not compete there. And note the Status column: MD5 and SHA-1 broke under cryptanalysis, which is exactly why no system is "the most secure" — security is provisional. The deposit claims fitness for content-addressing, not supremacy. A content-address proves integrity, not truth.
What the table is saying
- The deposit's
toUuidis a content-address, built on FNV-1a — a non-cryptographic hash by design. It is deterministic and public: anyone can recompute it with no key. That is its strength for identity and integrity, and exactly why it offers no secrecy. - It is not a messaging system and not encryption. For confidentiality use AES; for authentication use HMAC; for private messaging use a protocol like Signal. The deposit does not compete there — it is a different tool.
- A single address cannot store an unbounded state — 128 bits is a fixed-width fingerprint, so by the pigeonhole principle it references a state, it does not contain it. You still need the data to recover it. (proof)
- Standards break — MD5 fell to collisions, SHA-1 fell (SHAttered). That is why "most secure" is not a claim anyone can make: security is provisional, always subject to the next cryptanalysis. And every finite digest — strong or weak — must eventually collide by pigeonhole. (proof)
The deposit claims fitness for content-addressing, not supremacy. A content-address proves integrity, not truth. entails → 0/7.
Coins vs real gold vs crypto — a measure, not a market
Anyone chooses the terms and currency; uuidna computes, and predefines the donation amount in the URL. The reproducible measure never moves with the choice — the two coins conserve at 2, the bits count real work saved. Real gold (1 troy oz) and bitcoin (1 BTC = 100,000,000 sat) carry live market prices, fetched in your browser for measurable scale — volatile, non-reproducible, never sealed, never advice. uuidna's own value is real savings (bits of work not repeated), which at global scale become materially large (modeled, conditional on adoption). Verified by the coins are a conserved measure, not a market price and anyone chooses the terms and currency.
Donate 8 USD →predefined in the URL: https://revolut.me/ceccec/8usd?note=uuidna — you open it and pay on Revolut yourself; non-obligatory.
| asset | unit (exact, reproducible) | live price (volatile) | what its value is |
|---|---|---|---|
| uuidna coins | 2 — conserved (110−108) | none — not traded | a fair-exchange invariant, not a market price |
| uuidna bits | 1023 bits saved / re-addressable op | none — not traded | real savings — work not repeated (a measured count) |
| gold (PAXG) | 1 troy oz = 31.1034768 g | —/oz · —/g | mass × market (speculative) |
| bitcoin | 1 BTC = 100,000,000 sat | —/BTC · —/sat | supply × market (speculative) |
Fetching live prices…
Anyone chooses the terms and currency; uuidna computes the same reproducible measure regardless — the coins conserve at 2, the bits count real work saved. Implemented at scale those bits saved become globally material (modeled, conditional on adoption). Gold and crypto are shown only for measurable scale. A measure, not a market. Integrity, not truth. 0/7.
Cost / earnings per trillion tokens — live, versus uuidna
Live per-token rates for many models, fetched at view time from a credible public no-key API (OpenRouter's models endpoint), shown per trillion input tokens — and where each stands once uuidna's content-addressing adds a caching/dedup layer. The earnings are the compute saved on the re-addressable fraction (set the cache-hit rate), conditional, never a universal discount. A content-address proves integrity, not truth. 0/7.
Fetching live rates from OpenRouter…
Live rates via OpenRouter's public models API (no key, fetched in your browser) — aggregated vendor rates, not asserted by this deposit and not the vendors' official direct prices. Cost is per trillion input tokens, where caching applies. uuidna is a content-addressing / caching layer: earnings are the compute saved on the re-addressable fraction only — conditional on the hit-rate, never a universal discount. Measured, not a promise. Integrity, not truth. 0/7.
Hardware saved is the waste removed, not the hardware: on the re-addressable fraction, compute cycles (cache hits avoid recompute), storage (dedup by address stores identical content once, not N copies), and bandwidth (a 36-byte address travels, not the payload). No component becomes useless — the distinct work still needs it. And earnings come from someone's savings: a fair share, bounded by the saving, zero without it — the user keeps the rest.