4 ms·
Don't get discouraged, but you might still have a bug or two to work out with your new and never-before-tried "256^8 and easily able to be represented searching
by SiVal 6y ago
Don't get discouraged, but you might still have a bug or two to work out with your new and never-before-tried "256^8 and easily able to be represented searching online with 8 characters" design. For your beta test, here are some of the unique 8-char identifiers you might want to try searching for:
`unique `, ` unique `, ` unique`, `Unique `, `u^Hunique`, `un^Hnique`, `uniq^H^H^H^H`, ` . . . .`, `. . . . `, `uniqueESCESC`, `BELBELBELBELBELBELBELBEL`, ...
- nickthemagicman 6y agoLol, thanks for your totally non sarcastic assistance. It needs some fleshing out.
- nickthemagicman 6y agoIf the alternative is a 32 char, 128 bit hex string..I think that's a little excessive to expect people to use especially when an 8 char ascii has way more variation and is way easier to remember. 687c066db3458f7cbd5cc8bd58a65c64. Vs. *Xrh6x1! You just have to eliminate dictionary words.