presents VS Hashids.java

I’ve been working on a robust scheme for encrypted sequential IDs, which is done, including implementations in Rust, JavaScript and Python, pending just a smidgeon more writing about it and reviewing a decision on naming. You store an integer in the database, then encrypt it with a real block cipher, and stringify with Base58. I have three modes: one for 32-bit IDs, using Speck32/64 and producing 4–6 character IDs; one for 64-bit IDs, using Speck64/128 and producing 8–11 character IDs; and one hybrid, using the 32-bit mode for IDs below 2³² and the 64-bit mode above that, providing both a forwards-compatibility measure and a way of producing short IDs as long as possible. Contact me (see my profile) if you’re interested, or I’ll probably publish it in another day or two. Trouble is that I’ve been getting distracted with other related concepts, like optimally-short encoding by using encryption domains [0, 58¹), [58¹, 58²), …, [58¹⁰, 2⁶⁴) (this is format-preserving encryption; the main reputable and practical choices I’ve found are Hasty Pudding, which I’ve just about finished implementing but would like test vectors for but they’re on a dead FTP site, and NIST’s FF1 and FF3, which are patent-encumbered), and ways of avoiding undesirable patterns (curse words and such) by skipping integers from the database’s ID sequence if they encode to what you don’t want, and check characters with the Damm algorithm. If I didn’t keep getting distracted with these things, I’d have published a couple of weeks ago.

(I am not aware of any open-source library embodying a scheme like what I propose—all that I’ve found have either reduced scope or badly broken encryption; https://github.com/yi-jiayu/presents is sound, but doesn’t stringify; Hashids is broken almost beyond belief and should not be considered encryption; Optimus uses an extremely weak encryption.)

You basically want Hashids but sequential? Why not simple convert a base 10 (0-9) number to hex? (0-F)

I found hashids [1] to be a great compromise between integer ids in the database and copyable non-enumerable strings on the client.

[1] https://hashids.org/

I wonder how this might compare to just storing regular autoincrementing ints in the database, and converting to/from hashids (https://hashids.org/) at the edge. It eliminates the collision concern and stores more compactly at the cost of a tiny amount of encode/decode when processing requests. You’d want to push it down as close to the database layer as possible to avoid inadvertent int ID leaks; I added native hashids support to clickhouse but I’m not sure what other database support might entail.

Since hashids are not really hashes and are not secure at all this is not even achieved. Hashids can be easily decoded without the salt by a simple brute-force attack described by the authors of hashid themselves right on their website: https://hashids.org/

You don't necessarily need to use UUIDs. You could use something like Hashids to generate random strings from your sequential IDs in a reversible way, so that users can't predict what their values will be, but you can decode them as needed.

You should not use UUIDv4 as a primary key. You can use normal int values and then use hashids to make them safe for URL. UUIDv7 might be good to use as well once they are more widely supported as well.