$ ./stats
Saw 58263 hashes
7fqcxaa
https://twtxt.net/user/justamoment/twtxt.txt
https://twtxt.net/user/prologic/twtxt.txt
ntnakqa
https://twtxt.net/user/prologic/twtxt.txt
https://twtxt.net/user/thecanine/twtxt.txt
Namely:
$ jenny -D https://twtxt.net/user/justamoment/twtxt.txt | grep 7fqcxaa
[7fqcxaa] [2022-12-28 04:53:30+00:00] [(#pmuqoca) @prologic I checked the GitHub discussion, it became a request to join forces.
Do you plan on having them join?
Also for the name, how about:
- "progit" or "prologit" (prologic official hard fork)
- "git-stance" (git instance)
- "GitTree" (Gitea inspired, maybe to related)
- "Gitomata" (git automata)
- "Git.Source"
- "Forgor" (forgit is taken so I forgor) 🤣
- "SweetGit" (as salty chat)
- "Pepper Git" (other ingredients) 😉
- "GitHeart" (core of git with a GitHub sounding name)
- "GitTaka" (With music in mind)
Ok, enough fun... Hope this helps sprout some ideas from others if nothing is to your taste.]
$ jenny -D https://twtxt.net/user/prologic/twtxt.txt/5 | grep 7fqcxaa
[7fqcxaa] [2022-02-25 21:14:45+00:00] [(#bqq6fxq) It's handled by blue Monday]
And:
$ jenny -D https://twtxt.net/user/thecanine/twtxt.txt | grep ntnakqa
[ntnakqa] [2022-01-23 10:24:09+00:00] [(#2wh7r4q) @prologic I know, I was just hoping it might have also gotten fixed by that change, by some kind of backend miracles. 😂]
$ jenny -D https://twtxt.net/user/prologic/twtxt.txt/1 | grep ntnakqa
[ntnakqa] [2024-02-27 05:51:50+00:00] [(#otuupfq) @shreyan Ahh 👌]
$ ./stats
Saw 58263 hashes
7fqcxaa
https://twtxt.net/user/justamoment/twtxt.txt
https://twtxt.net/user/prologic/twtxt.txt
ntnakqa
https://twtxt.net/user/prologic/twtxt.txt
https://twtxt.net/user/thecanine/twtxt.txt
Namely:
$ jenny -D https://twtxt.net/user/justamoment/twtxt.txt | grep 7fqcxaa
[7fqcxaa] [2022-12-28 04:53:30+00:00] [(#pmuqoca) @prologic I checked the GitHub discussion, it became a request to join forces.
Do you plan on having them join?
Also for the name, how about:
- "progit" or "prologit" (prologic official hard fork)
- "git-stance" (git instance)
- "GitTree" (Gitea inspired, maybe to related)
- "Gitomata" (git automata)
- "Git.Source"
- "Forgor" (forgit is taken so I forgor) 🤣
- "SweetGit" (as salty chat)
- "Pepper Git" (other ingredients) 😉
- "GitHeart" (core of git with a GitHub sounding name)
- "GitTaka" (With music in mind)
Ok, enough fun... Hope this helps sprout some ideas from others if nothing is to your taste.]
$ jenny -D https://twtxt.net/user/prologic/twtxt.txt/5 | grep 7fqcxaa
[7fqcxaa] [2022-02-25 21:14:45+00:00] [(#bqq6fxq) It's handled by blue Monday]
And:
$ jenny -D https://twtxt.net/user/thecanine/twtxt.txt | grep ntnakqa
[ntnakqa] [2022-01-23 10:24:09+00:00] [(#2wh7r4q) @prologic I know, I was just hoping it might have also gotten fixed by that change, by some kind of backend miracles. 😂]
$ jenny -D https://twtxt.net/user/prologic/twtxt.txt/1 | grep ntnakqa
[ntnakqa] [2024-02-27 05:51:50+00:00] [(#otuupfq) @shreyan Ahh 👌]
$ ./stats
Saw 58263 hashes
7fqcxaa
https://twtxt.net/user/justamoment/twtxt.txt
https://twtxt.net/user/prologic/twtxt.txt
ntnakqa
https://twtxt.net/user/prologic/twtxt.txt
https://twtxt.net/user/thecanine/twtxt.txt
Namely:
$ jenny -D https://twtxt.net/user/justamoment/twtxt.txt | grep 7fqcxaa
[7fqcxaa] [2022-12-28 04:53:30+00:00] [(#pmuqoca) @prologic I checked the GitHub discussion, it became a request to join forces.
Do you plan on having them join?
Also for the name, how about:
- "progit" or "prologit" (prologic official hard fork)
- "git-stance" (git instance)
- "GitTree" (Gitea inspired, maybe to related)
- "Gitomata" (git automata)
- "Git.Source"
- "Forgor" (forgit is taken so I forgor) 🤣
- "SweetGit" (as salty chat)
- "Pepper Git" (other ingredients) 😉
- "GitHeart" (core of git with a GitHub sounding name)
- "GitTaka" (With music in mind)
Ok, enough fun... Hope this helps sprout some ideas from others if nothing is to your taste.]
$ jenny -D https://twtxt.net/user/prologic/twtxt.txt/5 | grep 7fqcxaa
[7fqcxaa] [2022-02-25 21:14:45+00:00] [(#bqq6fxq) It's handled by blue Monday]
And:
$ jenny -D https://twtxt.net/user/thecanine/twtxt.txt | grep ntnakqa
[ntnakqa] [2022-01-23 10:24:09+00:00] [(#2wh7r4q) @prologic I know, I was just hoping it might have also gotten fixed by that change, by some kind of backend miracles. 😂]
$ jenny -D https://twtxt.net/user/prologic/twtxt.txt/1 | grep ntnakqa
[ntnakqa] [2024-02-27 05:51:50+00:00] [(#otuupfq) @shreyan Ahh 👌]
$ ./stats
Saw 58263 hashes
7fqcxaa
https://twtxt.net/user/justamoment/twtxt.txt
https://twtxt.net/user/prologic/twtxt.txt
ntnakqa
https://twtxt.net/user/prologic/twtxt.txt
https://twtxt.net/user/thecanine/twtxt.txt
Namely:
$ jenny -D https://twtxt.net/user/justamoment/twtxt.txt | grep 7fqcxaa
[7fqcxaa] [2022-12-28 04:53:30+00:00] [(#pmuqoca) @prologic I checked the GitHub discussion, it became a request to join forces.
Do you plan on having them join?
Also for the name, how about:
- "progit" or "prologit" (prologic official hard fork)
- "git-stance" (git instance)
- "GitTree" (Gitea inspired, maybe to related)
- "Gitomata" (git automata)
- "Git.Source"
- "Forgor" (forgit is taken so I forgor) 🤣
- "SweetGit" (as salty chat)
- "Pepper Git" (other ingredients) 😉
- "GitHeart" (core of git with a GitHub sounding name)
- "GitTaka" (With music in mind)
Ok, enough fun... Hope this helps sprout some ideas from others if nothing is to your taste.]
$ jenny -D https://twtxt.net/user/prologic/twtxt.txt/5 | grep 7fqcxaa
[7fqcxaa] [2022-02-25 21:14:45+00:00] [(#bqq6fxq) It's handled by blue Monday]
And:
$ jenny -D https://twtxt.net/user/thecanine/twtxt.txt | grep ntnakqa
[ntnakqa] [2022-01-23 10:24:09+00:00] [(#2wh7r4q) @prologic I know, I was just hoping it might have also gotten fixed by that change, by some kind of backend miracles. 😂]
$ jenny -D https://twtxt.net/user/prologic/twtxt.txt/1 | grep ntnakqa
[ntnakqa] [2024-02-27 05:51:50+00:00] [(#otuupfq) @shreyan Ahh 👌]
$ ./stats
Saw 58263 hashes
7fqcxaa
https://twtxt.net/user/justamoment/twtxt.txt
https://twtxt.net/user/prologic/twtxt.txt
ntnakqa
https://twtxt.net/user/prologic/twtxt.txt
https://twtxt.net/user/thecanine/twtxt.txt
Namely:
$ jenny -D https://twtxt.net/user/justamoment/twtxt.txt | grep 7fqcxaa
\n \n [(#pmuqoca) @prologic I checked the GitHub discussion, it became a request to join forces.
Do you plan on having them join?
Also for the name, how about:
- "progit" or "prologit" (prologic official hard fork)
- "git-stance" (git instance)
- "GitTree" (Gitea inspired, maybe to related)
- "Gitomata" (git automata)
- "Git.Source"
- "Forgor" (forgit is taken so I forgor) 🤣
- "SweetGit" (as salty chat)
- "Pepper Git" (other ingredients) 😉
- "GitHeart" (core of git with a GitHub sounding name)
- "GitTaka" (With music in mind)
Ok, enough fun... Hope this helps sprout some ideas from others if nothing is to your taste.]
$ jenny -D https://twtxt.net/user/prologic/twtxt.txt/5 | grep 7fqcxaa
\n \n [(#bqq6fxq) It's handled by blue Monday]
And:
$ jenny -D https://twtxt.net/user/thecanine/twtxt.txt | grep ntnakqa
\n \n [(#2wh7r4q) @prologic I know, I was just hoping it might have also gotten fixed by that change, by some kind of backend miracles. 😂]
$ jenny -D https://twtxt.net/user/prologic/twtxt.txt/1 | grep ntnakqa
\n \n [(#otuupfq) @shreyan Ahh 👌]
(#<DATETIME URL>) would also work, yeah.
(#<DATETIME URL>) would also work, yeah.
(#<DATETIME URL>) would also work, yeah.
(#<DATETIME URL>) would also work, yeah.
Le me is worried! 😅
Le me is worried! 😅
Le me is worried! 😅
Personally, I am not really concerned about malicious actors here. Some may see that as naive. But if someone turns out to be an idiot, I unfollow their feed and delete my replies to them, done. (Something like
(replyto:…) would even make it trivial to find all my replies to a particular feed and nuke them. Could be done with sed.)For the same reason, GPG signed feeds never took off. It just doesn’t matter. twtxt is small and nieche and that won’t change anytime soon, I think. We only have to make sure that we don’t open the gates for *massive spam* and I think we’re safe on that.
It’s easy to get lost in these scenarios and overshoot the target.
Personally, I am not really concerned about malicious actors here. Some may see that as naive. But if someone turns out to be an idiot, I unfollow their feed and delete my replies to them, done. (Something like
(replyto:…) would even make it trivial to find all my replies to a particular feed and nuke them. Could be done with sed.)For the same reason, GPG signed feeds never took off. It just doesn’t matter. twtxt is small and nieche and that won’t change anytime soon, I think. We only have to make sure that we don’t open the gates for *massive spam* and I think we’re safe on that.
It’s easy to get lost in these scenarios and overshoot the target.
Personally, I am not really concerned about malicious actors here. Some may see that as naive. But if someone turns out to be an idiot, I unfollow their feed and delete my replies to them, done. (Something like
(replyto:…) would even make it trivial to find all my replies to a particular feed and nuke them. Could be done with sed.)For the same reason, GPG signed feeds never took off. It just doesn’t matter. twtxt is small and nieche and that won’t change anytime soon, I think. We only have to make sure that we don’t open the gates for *massive spam* and I think we’re safe on that.
It’s easy to get lost in these scenarios and overshoot the target.
Personally, I am not really concerned about malicious actors here. Some may see that as naive. But if someone turns out to be an idiot, I unfollow their feed and delete my replies to them, done. (Something like
(replyto:…) would even make it trivial to find all my replies to a particular feed and nuke them. Could be done with sed.)For the same reason, GPG signed feeds never took off. It just doesn’t matter. twtxt is small and nieche and that won’t change anytime soon, I think. We only have to make sure that we don’t open the gates for *massive spam* and I think we’re safe on that.
It’s easy to get lost in these scenarios and overshoot the target.
I’ll begin experimenting in jenny with Update Commands and see how bad it gets. I’ve already determined that my storage model wouldn’t work anymore. It’s all *doable*, but, like you, I’m not that happy with all the consequences. 😂
I’ll begin experimenting in jenny with Update Commands and see how bad it gets. I’ve already determined that my storage model wouldn’t work anymore. It’s all *doable*, but, like you, I’m not that happy with all the consequences. 😂
I’ll begin experimenting in jenny with Update Commands and see how bad it gets. I’ve already determined that my storage model wouldn’t work anymore. It’s all *doable*, but, like you, I’m not that happy with all the consequences. 😂
I’ll begin experimenting in jenny with Update Commands and see how bad it gets. I’ve already determined that my storage model wouldn’t work anymore. It’s all *doable*, but, like you, I’m not that happy with all the consequences. 😂
I hope to see @david @movq @lyse @xuu @sorenpeter and hopefully others too @aelaraji @falsifian and anyone else that sees this! 🙏 We're _hopefully_ going to primarily discuss the future of Twtxt and the last few weeks of discussions 🤣
- Event: Yarn.social Online Meetup
- When: 28th September 2024 at 12:00pm UTC (midday)
- Where: Mills Meet : Yarn.social
- Cadence: 4th Saturday of every Month
Agenda:
- Let's talk about the upcoming changes to the Twtxt spec(s)
- See #xgghhnq
#Yarn.social #Meetup
I hope to see @david @movq @lyse @xuu @sorenpeter and hopefully others too @aelaraji @falsifian and anyone else that sees this! 🙏 We're _hopefully_ going to primarily discuss the future of Twtxt and the last few weeks of discussions 🤣
- Event: Yarn.social Online Meetup
- When: 28th September 2024 at 12:00pm UTC (midday)
- Where: Mills Meet : Yarn.social
- Cadence: 4th Saturday of every Month
Agenda:
- Let's talk about the upcoming changes to the Twtxt spec(s)
- See #xgghhnq
#Yarn.social #Meetup
- We increase the Hash length from
7 to 11.- We formalise the Update Commands extension.
- We amend the Twt Hash and Metadata extension to state:
> Feed authors that wish to change the location of their feed (_once Twts have been published_) must append a new
# url = comment to their feed to indicate the new location and thus change the "Hashing URI" used for Twts from _that_ point onward.This has implications of the "order" of a feed, and we should either do one of two things, either:
- Mandate that feeds are append-only.
- Or amend the Metadata spec with a new field that denotes the order of the feed so clients can make sense of "inline" comments in the feed. -- This would also imply that the default order is (_of course_) append-only. Suggestion:
# direction = [append|prepend]
- We increase the Hash length from
7 to 11.- We formalise the Update Commands extension.
- We amend the Twt Hash and Metadata extension to state:
> Feed authors that wish to change the location of their feed (_once Twts have been published_) must append a new
# url = comment to their feed to indicate the new location and thus change the "Hashing URI" used for Twts from _that_ point onward.This has implications of the "order" of a feed, and we should either do one of two things, either:
- Mandate that feeds are append-only.
- Or amend the Metadata spec with a new field that denotes the order of the feed so clients can make sense of "inline" comments in the feed. -- This would also imply that the default order is (_of course_) append-only. Suggestion:
# direction = [append|prepend]
1. Add the ability to allow feed address changes.
2. Increase hash from 7 to 11, and/or change the hashing algorithm to something else, better.
3. Implement
movq (I simply can’t mention while on mobile) second option (the one you like, which maintains content addressing).
yarnd to see how many things would break and how many assumptions there are around the idea of "Content Addressing"; here's where I'm at so far:- What breaks
Basically I'm at a point where spending time on this is going to provide very little value, there are assumptions made in the lextwt parser, assumptions made in yarnd, assumptions in the way storage is done and the way threading works and things are looked up. There are far reaching implications to changing the way Twts are identified here to be "location addressed" that I'm quite worried about the amount of effort would be required to change
yarnd here.
yarnd to see how many things would break and how many assumptions there are around the idea of "Content Addressing"; here's where I'm at so far:- What breaks
Basically I'm at a point where spending time on this is going to provide very little value, there are assumptions made in the lextwt parser, assumptions made in yarnd, assumptions in the way storage is done and the way threading works and things are looked up. There are far reaching implications to changing the way Twts are identified here to be "location addressed" that I'm quite worried about the amount of effort would be required to change
yarnd here.
(#<DATETIME URL>)since it mirrors the twt-mention syntax and simply points to the OP as the topic identified by the time of posting it. Do we really need and (edit:...)and (delete:...) also?
(#<DATETIME URL>)since it mirrors the twt-mention syntax and simply points to the OP as the topic identified by the time of posting it. Do we really need and (edit:...)and (delete:...) also?
(#<DATETIME URL>)since it mirrors the twt-mention syntax and simply points to the OP as the topic identified by the time of posting it. Do we really need and (edit:...)and (delete:...) also?
(#<DATETIME URL>)since it mirrors the twt-mention syntax and simply points to the OP as the topic identified by the time of posting it. Do we really need and (edit:...)and (delete:...) also?
Fresh hay bales on a field
A screenshot of two "Dunst" notifications sent from a bash script showing how many unread twts and twtxt mentions I have in my inbox.
A screenshot of two "Dunst" notifications sent from a bash script showing how many unread twts and twtxt mentions I have in my inbox.
A screenshot of two "Dunst" notifications sent from a bash script showing how many unread twts and twtxt mentions I have in my inbox.
With the
(replyto:…) proposal, clients cannot indicate that a twt was edited *in the long run*. Clients can, of course, show that *right now*, but when they clean their cache and refetch feeds, the information is lost. This can be abused by malicious actors *if sufficient time has passed* (clients must have purged their cache): Malicious actors can change root twts and thus change the meaning of thread/replies.Is this a showstopper for you? 🤔
With the
(replyto:…) proposal, clients cannot indicate that a twt was edited *in the long run*. Clients can, of course, show that *right now*, but when they clean their cache and refetch feeds, the information is lost. This can be abused by malicious actors *if sufficient time has passed* (clients must have purged their cache): Malicious actors can change root twts and thus change the meaning of thread/replies.Is this a showstopper for you? 🤔
With the
(replyto:…) proposal, clients cannot indicate that a twt was edited *in the long run*. Clients can, of course, show that *right now*, but when they clean their cache and refetch feeds, the information is lost. This can be abused by malicious actors *if sufficient time has passed* (clients must have purged their cache): Malicious actors can change root twts and thus change the meaning of thread/replies.Is this a showstopper for you? 🤔
With the
(replyto:…) proposal, clients cannot indicate that a twt was edited *in the long run*. Clients can, of course, show that *right now*, but when they clean their cache and refetch feeds, the information is lost. This can be abused by malicious actors *if sufficient time has passed* (clients must have purged their cache): Malicious actors can change root twts and thus change the meaning of thread/replies.Is this a showstopper for you? 🤔
(edit:) spec has similar problems in its current form:1. Post a normal twt with nonsense content, let’s say the content is just a dot “.”.
2. Post an update to that twt, this time filling it with actual content, let’s say: “Birds are great!”
3. Wait for people to reply to your twt (which is the edited one). You might get lots of replies along the lines of “ohhhh, yeah!” or “😍😍😍” or other stuff wholeheartedly agreeing with you.
4. Post another update to the first twt, again changing the content completely, let’s say: “The earth is flat!”
5. Delete your first update from your feed, the one with the birds. Not with
(delete:), just remove the line.6. There’s now a thread with lots of people agreeing to a twt that says “The earth is flat!”
You might be able to see that the original content was just a dot “.”, but the twt that people actually replied to is gone for good and no way to detect that.
This raises two questions:
- The easy question: What do we do when the twt that an
(edit:) line refers to is removed *later on* from a feed? We would have to delete that original twt from our caches, including the edit operation. This should be part of the spec.- The result being a thread without a root, just like it is today. That’s fine.
- The hard question: How do we deal with multiple (potentially malicious or misleading) edits? Do we even want to open that can of worms? People only ever use the original twt hash in their replies, so nobody really knows to which edited version they’re replying. That is very similar to the
(replyto:) situation, I think. 🤔
(edit:) spec has similar problems in its current form:1. Post a normal twt with nonsense content, let’s say the content is just a dot “.”.
2. Post an update to that twt, this time filling it with actual content, let’s say: “Birds are great!”
3. Wait for people to reply to your twt (which is the edited one). You might get lots of replies along the lines of “ohhhh, yeah!” or “😍😍😍” or other stuff wholeheartedly agreeing with you.
4. Post another update to the first twt, again changing the content completely, let’s say: “The earth is flat!”
5. Delete your first update from your feed, the one with the birds. Not with
(delete:), just remove the line.6. There’s now a thread with lots of people agreeing to a twt that says “The earth is flat!”
You might be able to see that the original content was just a dot “.”, but the twt that people actually replied to is gone for good and no way to detect that.
This raises two questions:
- The easy question: What do we do when the twt that an
(edit:) line refers to is removed *later on* from a feed? We would have to delete that original twt from our caches, including the edit operation. This should be part of the spec.- The result being a thread without a root, just like it is today. That’s fine.
- The hard question: How do we deal with multiple (potentially malicious or misleading) edits? Do we even want to open that can of worms? People only ever use the original twt hash in their replies, so nobody really knows to which edited version they’re replying. That is very similar to the
(replyto:) situation, I think. 🤔
(edit:) spec has similar problems in its current form:1. Post a normal twt with nonsense content, let’s say the content is just a dot “.”.
2. Post an update to that twt, this time filling it with actual content, let’s say: “Birds are great!”
3. Wait for people to reply to your twt (which is the edited one). You might get lots of replies along the lines of “ohhhh, yeah!” or “😍😍😍” or other stuff wholeheartedly agreeing with you.
4. Post another update to the first twt, again changing the content completely, let’s say: “The earth is flat!”
5. Delete your first update from your feed, the one with the birds. Not with
(delete:), just remove the line.6. There’s now a thread with lots of people agreeing to a twt that says “The earth is flat!”
You might be able to see that the original content was just a dot “.”, but the twt that people actually replied to is gone for good and no way to detect that.
This raises two questions:
- The easy question: What do we do when the twt that an
(edit:) line refers to is removed *later on* from a feed? We would have to delete that original twt from our caches, including the edit operation. This should be part of the spec.- The result being a thread without a root, just like it is today. That’s fine.
- The hard question: How do we deal with multiple (potentially malicious or misleading) edits? Do we even want to open that can of worms? People only ever use the original twt hash in their replies, so nobody really knows to which edited version they’re replying. That is very similar to the
(replyto:) situation, I think. 🤔
(edit:) spec has similar problems in its current form:1. Post a normal twt with nonsense content, let’s say the content is just a dot “.”.
2. Post an update to that twt, this time filling it with actual content, let’s say: “Birds are great!”
3. Wait for people to reply to your twt (which is the edited one). You might get lots of replies along the lines of “ohhhh, yeah!” or “😍😍😍” or other stuff wholeheartedly agreeing with you.
4. Post another update to the first twt, again changing the content completely, let’s say: “The earth is flat!”
5. Delete your first update from your feed, the one with the birds. Not with
(delete:), just remove the line.6. There’s now a thread with lots of people agreeing to a twt that says “The earth is flat!”
You might be able to see that the original content was just a dot “.”, but the twt that people actually replied to is gone for good and no way to detect that.
This raises two questions:
- The easy question: What do we do when the twt that an
(edit:) line refers to is removed *later on* from a feed? We would have to delete that original twt from our caches, including the edit operation. This should be part of the spec.- The result being a thread without a root, just like it is today. That’s fine.
- The hard question: How do we deal with multiple (potentially malicious or misleading) edits? Do we even want to open that can of worms? People only ever use the original twt hash in their replies, so nobody really knows to which edited version they’re replying. That is very similar to the
(replyto:) situation, I think. 🤔
> I just realized the other big property you lose is:
>
> > What if someone completely changes the content of the root of the thread?
>
> Does the Subject reference the feed and timestamp only or the intent too?
Then the content of that root twt changes. Just like it would with
(edit:…). The only difference is that you cannot go back to that person’s feed and find out what the original content was.In other words, we can’t (reliably) show a little star
* like on Mastodon to indicate edits.
> I just realized the other big property you lose is:
>
> > What if someone completely changes the content of the root of the thread?
>
> Does the Subject reference the feed and timestamp only or the intent too?
Then the content of that root twt changes. Just like it would with
(edit:…). The only difference is that you cannot go back to that person’s feed and find out what the original content was.In other words, we can’t (reliably) show a little star
* like on Mastodon to indicate edits.
> I just realized the other big property you lose is:
>
> > What if someone completely changes the content of the root of the thread?
>
> Does the Subject reference the feed and timestamp only or the intent too?
Then the content of that root twt changes. Just like it would with
(edit:…). The only difference is that you cannot go back to that person’s feed and find out what the original content was.In other words, we can’t (reliably) show a little star
* like on Mastodon to indicate edits.
> I just realized the other big property you lose is:
>
> > What if someone completely changes the content of the root of the thread?
>
> Does the Subject reference the feed and timestamp only or the intent too?
Then the content of that root twt changes. Just like it would with
(edit:…). The only difference is that you cannot go back to that person’s feed and find out what the original content was.In other words, we can’t (reliably) show a little star
* like on Mastodon to indicate edits.
Regarding the URL changing issue: That is not a new issue and not addressed by either PR. Do you have some plans to solve this that only works with hashes? 🤔 Is it feed signing? I have to admit here, I forgot most about the feed signing ideas. 🙈
> - Twt Subjects lose their meaning
You mean existing threads in the past? Yeah.
> - Twt Subjects cannot be verified without looking up the feed.
> - Which may or may not exist anymore or may change.
Not sure what you mean? 🤔 But yes, things can change (that’s the point).
> - Two persons cannot reply to a Twt independently of each other anymore.
How so? 🤔 That would be a total show-stopper, I agree. But are you sure that’s going to happen? For example, if people were to reply to this very twt of yours, they would do this:
(replyto:https://twtxt.net/user/prologic/twtxt.txt,2024-09-21T15:22:18Z) foobar
Am I missing something?
Regarding the URL changing issue: That is not a new issue and not addressed by either PR. Do you have some plans to solve this that only works with hashes? 🤔 Is it feed signing? I have to admit here, I forgot most about the feed signing ideas. 🙈
> - Twt Subjects lose their meaning
You mean existing threads in the past? Yeah.
> - Twt Subjects cannot be verified without looking up the feed.
> - Which may or may not exist anymore or may change.
Not sure what you mean? 🤔 But yes, things can change (that’s the point).
> - Two persons cannot reply to a Twt independently of each other anymore.
How so? 🤔 That would be a total show-stopper, I agree. But are you sure that’s going to happen? For example, if people were to reply to this very twt of yours, they would do this:
(replyto:https://twtxt.net/user/prologic/twtxt.txt,2024-09-21T15:22:18Z) foobar
Am I missing something?
Regarding the URL changing issue: That is not a new issue and not addressed by either PR. Do you have some plans to solve this that only works with hashes? 🤔 Is it feed signing? I have to admit here, I forgot most about the feed signing ideas. 🙈
> - Twt Subjects lose their meaning
You mean existing threads in the past? Yeah.
> - Twt Subjects cannot be verified without looking up the feed.
> - Which may or may not exist anymore or may change.
Not sure what you mean? 🤔 But yes, things can change (that’s the point).
> - Two persons cannot reply to a Twt independently of each other anymore.
How so? 🤔 That would be a total show-stopper, I agree. But are you sure that’s going to happen? For example, if people were to reply to this very twt of yours, they would do this:
(replyto:https://twtxt.net/user/prologic/twtxt.txt,2024-09-21T15:22:18Z) foobar
Am I missing something?
Regarding the URL changing issue: That is not a new issue and not addressed by either PR. Do you have some plans to solve this that only works with hashes? 🤔 Is it feed signing? I have to admit here, I forgot most about the feed signing ideas. 🙈
> - Twt Subjects lose their meaning
You mean existing threads in the past? Yeah.
> - Twt Subjects cannot be verified without looking up the feed.
> - Which may or may not exist anymore or may change.
Not sure what you mean? 🤔 But yes, things can change (that’s the point).
> - Two persons cannot reply to a Twt independently of each other anymore.
How so? 🤔 That would be a total show-stopper, I agree. But are you sure that’s going to happen? For example, if people were to reply to this very twt of yours, they would do this:
(replyto:https://twtxt.net/user/prologic/twtxt.txt,2024-09-21T15:22:18Z) foobar
Am I missing something?
> What if someone completely changes the content of the root of the thread?
Does the Subject reference the feed and timestamp only or the intent too?
> What if someone completely changes the content of the root of the thread?
Does the Subject reference the feed and timestamp only or the intent too?
- Twt Subjects lose their meaning.
- Twt Subjects cannot be verified without looking up the feed.
- Which may or may not exist anymore or may change.
- Two persons cannot reply to a Twt independently of each other anymore.
_and probably some other properties we'd stand to lose that I'm forgetting about..._
- Twt Subjects lose their meaning.
- Twt Subjects cannot be verified without looking up the feed.
- Which may or may not exist anymore or may change.
- Two persons cannot reply to a Twt independently of each other anymore.
_and probably some other properties we'd stand to lose that I'm forgetting about..._
(replyto:...) as well. If the feed changes, well, it is the same as changing emails (and deleting the old one). No?
(replyto:…) proposal (_location addressing vs. content addressing_) is that you just introduce a similar problem down the track, albeit rarer where if a feed changes its location, your thread's "identifiers" are no longer valid, unless those feed authors maintain strict URL redirects, etc. This potentially has the long-term effect of being rather fragile, as opposed to what we have now where an Edit just really causes a natural fork in the thread, which is how "forking" works in the first place.I realise this is a bit pret here, and it probably doesn't matter a whole lot at our size. But I'm trying to think way ahead, to a point where Twtxt as a "thing" can continue to work and function decades from now, even with the extensions we've built. We've already proven for example that Twts and threads from ~4 years ago still work and are easily looked up haha 😝~
(replyto:…) proposal (_location addressing vs. content addressing_) is that you just introduce a similar problem down the track, albeit rarer where if a feed changes its location, your thread's "identifiers" are no longer valid, unless those feed authors maintain strict URL redirects, etc. This potentially has the long-term effect of being rather fragile, as opposed to what we have now where an Edit just really causes a natural fork in the thread, which is how "forking" works in the first place.I realise this is a bit pret here, and it probably doesn't matter a whole lot at our size. But I'm trying to think way ahead, to a point where Twtxt as a "thing" can continue to work and function decades from now, even with the extensions we've built. We've already proven for example that Twts and threads from ~4 years ago still work and are easily looked up haha 😝~
(replyto:…). It’s easier to implement and the whole edits-breaking-threads thing resolves itself in a “natural” way without the need to *add* stuff to the protocol.I’d love to try this out in practice to see how well it performs. 🤔 It’s all very theoretical at the moment.
(replyto:…). It’s easier to implement and the whole edits-breaking-threads thing resolves itself in a “natural” way without the need to *add* stuff to the protocol.I’d love to try this out in practice to see how well it performs. 🤔 It’s all very theoretical at the moment.
(replyto:…). It’s easier to implement and the whole edits-breaking-threads thing resolves itself in a “natural” way without the need to *add* stuff to the protocol.I’d love to try this out in practice to see how well it performs. 🤔 It’s all very theoretical at the moment.
(replyto:…). It’s easier to implement and the whole edits-breaking-threads thing resolves itself in a “natural” way without the need to *add* stuff to the protocol.I’d love to try this out in practice to see how well it performs. 🤔 It’s all very theoretical at the moment.
-
(replyto:…) is twtxt-style-
(edit:…) and (delete:…) is Yarn-style