I wonder if we could use some sort of distributed naming scheme for this, similar to Blockchain DNS?
Really cool idea, but I would second a shorter and sequential way of ID'ing bugs. Its common in QA flows to use the JIRA-like shorthand to discuss/assign tickets. <Proj alias>-<sequential num>. Proj-alias is usually like 3 letters/nums (project configurable). So like SEC-3640, QWE-123, etc. Human-readable/discussable bug ID is gonna be something desired. Hash could stay as an alternate for those with deeper GIT knowledge, but its gonna get verbose to discuss a ticket.
Add a bug_id_lockfile where you claim a namespace that starts with a letter, and if you sync up and someone has already claimed that namespace, you have to change and rename your bugs. The time of the checkin determines who gets it. There might be a couple bugs you have to rename, if you don't sync up right away.
So my bugs would start with A, yours with B, and so on. Once you get to 26 contributors you do two letters, etc.
Only half-joking here: it probably wouldn't be too much work to incorporate hash cracking: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33704297
But you can't use just auto-incrementing IDs in a distributed system.
Block chain is a fairly generic, badly misused term that I assert also covers the git log, which is actually a chain of cryptographic blocks where each block includes the hash of the previous. It even has a consensus algorithm. You can disagree, but your assertion is just an opinion in constrast to a misuse of the term Merkle tree.