git show 64bf
git show 64bf
if a client sees someone in a yarn using a byte longer hash it can lengthen to match since it can assume that maybe the other client has a collision that it doesnt know about.
if a client sees someone in a yarn using a byte longer hash it can lengthen to match since it can assume that maybe the other client has a collision that it doesnt know about.
abcdef0123456789... any sub string of that hash after the first 6 will match. so abcdef, abcdef012, abcdef0123456 all match the same. on the case of a collision i think we decided on matching the newest since we archive off older threads anyway. the third rule was about growing the minimum hash size after some threshold of collisions were detected.
abcdef0123456789... any sub string of that hash after the first 6 will match. so abcdef, abcdef012, abcdef0123456 all match the same. on the case of a collision i think we decided on matching the newest since we archive off older threads anyway. the third rule was about growing the minimum hash size after some threshold of collisions were detected.
screenshot. If that's not possible now maybe it will be later.git only uses sha1 because they're stuck with it: migrating is very hard. There was an effort to move git to sha256 but I don't know its status. I think there is progress being made with Game Of Trees, a git clone that uses the same on-disk format.
I can't imagine any benefit to using sha1, except that maybe some very old software might support sha1 but not sha256.
David's neighbourhood showing a stone sky.
David's neighbourhood showing a stone sky.
announce_me set to true. Now, who do I pick to be my first mention? Decisions, decisions. Next twtxt will have my first mention(s). :-)
announce_me set to true. Now, who do I pick to be my first mention? Decisions, decisions. Next twtxt will have my first mention(s). :-)
twtxt.txt as simple as possible. I have setup a publish_command on jenny. Hopefully all works fine, and I am good to go. Next will be setting the announce_me to true. Here we go!
twtxt.txt as simple as possible. I have setup a publish_command on jenny. Hopefully all works fine, and I am good to go. Next will be setting the announce_me to true. Here we go!
"*If twtxt/Yarn was to grow bigger, then this would become a concern again. *But even Mastodon allows editing*, so how
+much of a problem can it really be? 😅*"
"*If twtxt/Yarn was to grow bigger, then this would become a concern again. *But even Mastodon allows editing*, so how
+much of a problem can it really be? 😅*"
I think keeping hashes is a must. If anything for that "feels good" feeling.*
I think keeping hashes is a must. If anything for that "feels good" feeling.*
(delete: 5vbi2ea) .. would it delete someone elses twt?
(delete: 5vbi2ea) .. would it delete someone elses twt?
😂😂😂
It would be easy to do for releases, but it’s a little hard to do for all the commits in between – jenny has no build process, so there’s no easy way to incorporate the output of
git describe, for example.
It would be easy to do for releases, but it’s a little hard to do for all the commits in between – jenny has no build process, so there’s no easy way to incorporate the output of
git describe, for example.
It would be easy to do for releases, but it’s a little hard to do for all the commits in between – jenny has no build process, so there’s no easy way to incorporate the output of
git describe, for example.
It would be easy to do for releases, but it’s a little hard to do for all the commits in between – jenny has no build process, so there’s no easy way to incorporate the output of
git describe, for example.
The
(replyto:…) proposal is definitely more in the spirit of twtxt, I’d say. It’s much simpler, anyone can use it even with the simplest tools, no need for any client code. That is certainly a great property, if you ask me, and it’s things like that that brought me to twtxt in the first place.I’d also say that in our tiny little community, message integrity simply doesn’t matter. Signed feeds don’t matter. I signed my feed for a while using GPG, someone else did the same, but in the end, nobody cares. The community is so tiny, there’s enough “implicit trust” or whatever you want to call it.
If twtxt/Yarn was to grow bigger, then this would become a concern again. *But even Mastodon allows editing*, so how much of a problem can it really be? 😅
I do have to “admit”, though, that hashes *feel* better. It feels good to know that we can clearly identify a certain twt. It feels more correct and stable.
Hm.
I *suspect* that the
(replyto:…) proposal would work just as well in practice.
The
(replyto:…) proposal is definitely more in the spirit of twtxt, I’d say. It’s much simpler, anyone can use it even with the simplest tools, no need for any client code. That is certainly a great property, if you ask me, and it’s things like that that brought me to twtxt in the first place.I’d also say that in our tiny little community, message integrity simply doesn’t matter. Signed feeds don’t matter. I signed my feed for a while using GPG, someone else did the same, but in the end, nobody cares. The community is so tiny, there’s enough “implicit trust” or whatever you want to call it.
If twtxt/Yarn was to grow bigger, then this would become a concern again. *But even Mastodon allows editing*, so how much of a problem can it really be? 😅
I do have to “admit”, though, that hashes *feel* better. It feels good to know that we can clearly identify a certain twt. It feels more correct and stable.
Hm.
I *suspect* that the
(replyto:…) proposal would work just as well in practice.
The
(replyto:…) proposal is definitely more in the spirit of twtxt, I’d say. It’s much simpler, anyone can use it even with the simplest tools, no need for any client code. That is certainly a great property, if you ask me, and it’s things like that that brought me to twtxt in the first place.I’d also say that in our tiny little community, message integrity simply doesn’t matter. Signed feeds don’t matter. I signed my feed for a while using GPG, someone else did the same, but in the end, nobody cares. The community is so tiny, there’s enough “implicit trust” or whatever you want to call it.
If twtxt/Yarn was to grow bigger, then this would become a concern again. *But even Mastodon allows editing*, so how much of a problem can it really be? 😅
I do have to “admit”, though, that hashes *feel* better. It feels good to know that we can clearly identify a certain twt. It feels more correct and stable.
Hm.
I *suspect* that the
(replyto:…) proposal would work just as well in practice.
The
(replyto:…) proposal is definitely more in the spirit of twtxt, I’d say. It’s much simpler, anyone can use it even with the simplest tools, no need for any client code. That is certainly a great property, if you ask me, and it’s things like that that brought me to twtxt in the first place.I’d also say that in our tiny little community, message integrity simply doesn’t matter. Signed feeds don’t matter. I signed my feed for a while using GPG, someone else did the same, but in the end, nobody cares. The community is so tiny, there’s enough “implicit trust” or whatever you want to call it.
If twtxt/Yarn was to grow bigger, then this would become a concern again. *But even Mastodon allows editing*, so how much of a problem can it really be? 😅
I do have to “admit”, though, that hashes *feel* better. It feels good to know that we can clearly identify a certain twt. It feels more correct and stable.
Hm.
I *suspect* that the
(replyto:…) proposal would work just as well in practice.
jenny, a -v switch. That way when you twtxt "*That’s an older format that was used before jenny version v23.04*", I can go and run jenny -v, and "duh!" myself on the way to a git pull. :-D
jenny, a -v switch. That way when you twtxt "*That’s an older format that was used before jenny version v23.04*", I can go and run jenny -v, and "duh!" myself on the way to a git pull. :-D
commit 62a2b7735749f2ff3c9306dd984ad28f853595c5:> Crawl archived feeds in --fetch-context
Like, very much! :-)
commit 62a2b7735749f2ff3c9306dd984ad28f853595c5:> Crawl archived feeds in --fetch-context
Like, very much! :-)
> - editing, if you don't care about message integrity
So that’s the big question, because that’s the only real difference between hashes and the
(replyto:…) proposal.Do we care about message integrity?
With
(replyto:…), someone could write a twt, then I reply to it, like “you’re absolutely right!”, and then that person could change their twt to something malicious like “the earth is flat!” And then it would look like I’m a nutcase agreeing with that person. 😅Hashes (in their current form) prevent that. The thread is broken and my reply clearly refers to something else. That’s good, right?
But now take into account that we want to allow editing anyway. Is there even a point to using hashes anymore? Isn’t message integrity ignored anyway now, at least in practice?
There’s no difference (in practice) between someone writing
2024-09-18T12:34Z Brds are great!
and then editing it to either
2024-09-18T12:34Z (original:#12379) Birds are great! (Whoops, fixed a typo.)
or
2024-09-18T12:34Z (original:#12379) The earth is flat!
The actual original message is (potentially) gone. The only thing that we can be sure of now is that the twt was edited in *some* way. *Essentially*, the actual twt message is no longer part of the hash, is it? What does
#12379 refer to? The edited message or the original one? We *want* it to refer to the edited one, because we don’t want to break threads, so … what’s the point of using a hash?
> - editing, if you don't care about message integrity
So that’s the big question, because that’s the only real difference between hashes and the
(replyto:…) proposal.Do we care about message integrity?
With
(replyto:…), someone could write a twt, then I reply to it, like “you’re absolutely right!”, and then that person could change their twt to something malicious like “the earth is flat!” And then it would look like I’m a nutcase agreeing with that person. 😅Hashes (in their current form) prevent that. The thread is broken and my reply clearly refers to something else. That’s good, right?
But now take into account that we want to allow editing anyway. Is there even a point to using hashes anymore? Isn’t message integrity ignored anyway now, at least in practice?
There’s no difference (in practice) between someone writing
2024-09-18T12:34Z Brds are great!
and then editing it to either
2024-09-18T12:34Z (original:#12379) Birds are great! (Whoops, fixed a typo.)
or
2024-09-18T12:34Z (original:#12379) The earth is flat!
The actual original message is (potentially) gone. The only thing that we can be sure of now is that the twt was edited in *some* way. *Essentially*, the actual twt message is no longer part of the hash, is it? What does
#12379 refer to? The edited message or the original one? We *want* it to refer to the edited one, because we don’t want to break threads, so … what’s the point of using a hash?
> - editing, if you don't care about message integrity
So that’s the big question, because that’s the only real difference between hashes and the
(replyto:…) proposal.Do we care about message integrity?
With
(replyto:…), someone could write a twt, then I reply to it, like “you’re absolutely right!”, and then that person could change their twt to something malicious like “the earth is flat!” And then it would look like I’m a nutcase agreeing with that person. 😅Hashes (in their current form) prevent that. The thread is broken and my reply clearly refers to something else. That’s good, right?
But now take into account that we want to allow editing anyway. Is there even a point to using hashes anymore? Isn’t message integrity ignored anyway now, at least in practice?
There’s no difference (in practice) between someone writing
2024-09-18T12:34Z Brds are great!
and then editing it to either
2024-09-18T12:34Z (original:#12379) Birds are great! (Whoops, fixed a typo.)
or
2024-09-18T12:34Z (original:#12379) The earth is flat!
The actual original message is (potentially) gone. The only thing that we can be sure of now is that the twt was edited in *some* way. *Essentially*, the actual twt message is no longer part of the hash, is it? What does
#12379 refer to? The edited message or the original one? We *want* it to refer to the edited one, because we don’t want to break threads, so … what’s the point of using a hash?
> - editing, if you don't care about message integrity
So that’s the big question, because that’s the only real difference between hashes and the
(replyto:…) proposal.Do we care about message integrity?
With
(replyto:…), someone could write a twt, then I reply to it, like “you’re absolutely right!”, and then that person could change their twt to something malicious like “the earth is flat!” And then it would look like I’m a nutcase agreeing with that person. 😅Hashes (in their current form) prevent that. The thread is broken and my reply clearly refers to something else. That’s good, right?
But now take into account that we want to allow editing anyway. Is there even a point to using hashes anymore? Isn’t message integrity ignored anyway now, at least in practice?
There’s no difference (in practice) between someone writing
2024-09-18T12:34Z Brds are great!
and then editing it to either
2024-09-18T12:34Z (original:#12379) Birds are great! (Whoops, fixed a typo.)
or
2024-09-18T12:34Z (original:#12379) The earth is flat!
The actual original message is (potentially) gone. The only thing that we can be sure of now is that the twt was edited in *some* way. *Essentially*, the actual twt message is no longer part of the hash, is it? What does
#12379 refer to? The edited message or the original one? We *want* it to refer to the edited one, because we don’t want to break threads, so … what’s the point of using a hash?
And I guess the release after that is going to include all the threading/hashing stuff – if we can decide on one of the proposals. 😂