Should you always use your ORCID as a random seed?

There’s some interesting discussion in response to the cross validated question: Am I creating bias by using the same random seed over and over?

whuber caught my attention in the accepted answer:

…there is extraordinary merit in having a well-known “personal seed”…

I wonder if ORCID is a good candidate for a personal seed. It’s already a unique number, directly linked to your scholarly output, and easily verified thereby providing some accountability against seed picking.

Some folks have alphanumeric ORCIDs, though I don’t think they are very common, and one could easily think of a consistent way to convert letters to integers. One more serious possible draw back would be having the ORCID in your code could break the blinding on peer review. The ORCIDs tend to be long and complicated enough, though, that an editor or reviewer would have to have an unusual memory to accidentally un-blind you.

There was also some interesting chitchat about whether a personal seed that produces rare sequences is desirable for testing purposes. In the case of using your ORCID you wouldn’t be able to control this aspect.

Just for fun, I get 53 heads if I use my ORCID to do a 100 coin flips in R:

set.seed(my_orcid)
sum(rbinom(100, 1, .5))