> so you mean replacing the Lamport timestamp for the node/operation with a pointer to the element adjacent to the right, correct? Yeah thats right. Its a GUID

> so you mean replacing the Lamport timestamp for the node/operation with a pointer to the element adjacent to the right, correct? Yeah thats right. Its a GUID, because they need to be sent over the wire. For text editing, we usually use {site ID, transaction sequence} because they compress better than random IDs. > One alternative way to approach it that comes to mind is to introduce transaction semantics so that you can consider a node to be identified by a [Lamport timestamp, site ID, transaction sequence] and the parent, and use a sequence number within the transaction to sort, ... Maybe? I don't fully understand what you mean. And even if I did, I'm not clever enough to infer all the implications of that construction. But yes, I suspect you're right that in the best case, it would be equivalent to fuguemax. And in the worst case, it would introduce new bugs.