# I am the Watcher. I am your guide through this vast new twtiverse.
#
# Usage:
# https://watcher.sour.is/api/plain/users View list of users and latest twt date.
# https://watcher.sour.is/api/plain/twt View all twts.
# https://watcher.sour.is/api/plain/mentions?uri=:uri View all mentions for uri.
# https://watcher.sour.is/api/plain/conv/:hash View all twts for a conversation subject.
#
# Options:
# uri Filter to show a specific users twts.
# offset Start index for quey.
# limit Count of items to return (going back in time).
#
# twt range = 1 25
# self = https://watcher.sour.is/conv/maojn6q
@prologic I’m sure you can *somehow* install *something* that calculates blake2b on OpenBSD. But it’s not part of the base system as a standalone CLI tool, there only appear to be Perl modules for it. The other SHA tools do exist.
@prologic I’m sure you can *somehow* install *something* that calculates blake2b on OpenBSD. But it’s not part of the base system as a standalone CLI tool, there only appear to be Perl modules for it. The other SHA tools do exist.
@prologic I’m sure you can *somehow* install *something* that calculates blake2b on OpenBSD. But it’s not part of the base system as a standalone CLI tool, there only appear to be Perl modules for it. The other SHA tools do exist.
@prologic I’m sure you can *somehow* install *something* that calculates blake2b on OpenBSD. But it’s not part of the base system as a standalone CLI tool, there only appear to be Perl modules for it. The other SHA tools do exist.
@movq Curious, is our goal to have readily available tools on every possible system? 🤔
@movq Curious, is our goal to have readily available tools on every possible system? 🤔
@prologic I would think we would want to make it as easy as possible. I would favour something that's most widely and readily available, won't you?
@bender I'm inclined to agree. @xuu needs a bit of convincing maybe? 🤔
@bender I'm inclined to agree. @xuu needs a bit of convincing maybe? 🤔
I mean sure if i want to run it over on my tooth brush why not use something that is accessible everywhere like md5? crc32? It was chosen a long while back and the only benefit in changing now is "i cant find an implementation for x" when the down side is it breaks all existing threads. so...
@xuu I guess @movq 's point is there isn't one that is available as standard on OpenBSD? 😅
@xuu I guess @movq 's point is there isn't one that is available as standard on OpenBSD? 😅
@xuu @prologic You clearly have very different goals for twtxt and view it from a very different perspective. I don’t have the mental energy for these discussions. I’m gonna take a break.
@xuu @prologic You clearly have very different goals for twtxt and view it from a very different perspective. I don’t have the mental energy for these discussions. I’m gonna take a break.
@xuu @prologic You clearly have very different goals for twtxt and view it from a very different perspective. I don’t have the mental energy for these discussions. I’m gonna take a break.
@xuu @prologic You clearly have very different goals for twtxt and view it from a very different perspective. I don’t have the mental energy for these discussions. I’m gonna take a break.
@movq i'm sorry if I sound too contrarian. I'm not a fan of using an obscure hash as well. The problem is that of future and backward compatibility. If we change to sha256 or another we don't just need to support sha256. But need to now support both sha256 AND blake2b. Or we devide the community. Users of some clients will still use the old algorithm and get left behind.
Really we should all think hard about how changes will break things and if those breakages are acceptable.
@xuu being contrarian isn't a problem. Having different opinions force us to think, and make---hopefully---better decisions. We shouldn't, mustn't be contrarians, tough, while not offering a viable path forward that makes sense. What I am saying is that after that "so…" of yours needs to come a (or a set of) tangible recommendation(s). 😉
@xuu Yes, of course. This has been blown out of proportion anyway. All I originally wanted to say is that the b2sum program isn’t very widely available.
It would help to know how many different clients there actually are. I suspect that number is very close to 3.
@xuu Yes, of course. This has been blown out of proportion anyway. All I originally wanted to say is that the b2sum program isn’t very widely available.
It would help to know how many different clients there actually are. I suspect that number is very close to 3.
@xuu Yes, of course. This has been blown out of proportion anyway. All I originally wanted to say is that the b2sum program isn’t very widely available.
It would help to know how many different clients there actually are. I suspect that number is very close to 3.
@xuu Yes, of course. This has been blown out of proportion anyway. All I originally wanted to say is that the b2sum program isn’t very widely available.
It would help to know how many different clients there actually are. I suspect that number is very close to 3.