Can someone much smarter than me help me figure out a couple of newly discovered deadlocks in yarnd
that I think have always been there, but only recently uncovered by the Go 1.23 compiler.
Location Addressing is fine in smaller or single systems. But when you’re talking about large decentralised systems with no single point of control (kind of the point) things like independable variable integrity become quite important.
What is being proposed as a counter to content-addressing is called location-addressing. Two very different approaches, both with pros/cons of course. But a local cannot be verified, the content cannot be be guaranteed to be authenticate in any way, you just have to implicitly trust that the location points to the right thing.
For example, without content-addressing, you’d never have been able to find let alone pull up that ~3yr old Twt of me (my very first), hell I’d even though I lost my first feed file or it became corrupted or something 🤣 – If that were the case, it would actually be possible to reconstruct the feed and verify every single Twt against the caches of all of you 🤣
@david@collantes.us I really thinks articles like this explain the benefits far better than I can.
@prologic@twtxt.net I know the role of the current hash is to allow referencing (replies and, thus, threads), and it also represents a “unique” way to verify a twtxt hasn’t been tampered with. Is that second so important, if we are trying to allow edits? I know if feels good to be able to verify, but in reality, how often one does it?
@movq@www.uninformativ.de could it be possible to have compressed_subject(msg_singlelined)
be configurable, so only a certain number of characters get displayed, ending on ellipses? Right now the entire twtxt is crammed into the Subject:
. This request aims to make twtxts display on mutt
/neomutt
, etc. more like emails do.
@david@collantes.us Oh ! 🤦♂️
@david@collantes.us Witout including the content, it’s no longer really “content addressing” now is it? You’re essentially only addressing say nick+timestamp or url+timestamp.
@prologic@twtxt.net I don’t trust Google with anything, sorry, pass. Oh, and you need to sign in on your Google Account (or whatever they call it these days).
@prologic@twtxt.net how about hashing a combination of nick/timestamp, or url/timestamp only, and not the twtxt content? On edit those will not change, so no breaking of threads. I know, I know, just adding noise here. :-P
Speaking of AI tech (sorry!); Just came across this really cool tool built by some engineers at Google™ (currently completely free to use without any signup) called NotebookLM 👌 Looks really good for summarizing and talking to document 📃
@eldersnake@we.loveprivacy.club there has to be less reliance on a single point of failure. It is not so much about creating jobs in the US (which come with it, anyway), but about the ability to produce what’s needed at home too. What’s the trade off? Is it going to be a little bit more expensive to manufacture, perhaps?
@eldersnake@we.loveprivacy.club Yeah I’m looking forward to that myself 🤣 It’ll be great to see where technology grow to a level of maturity and efficiency where you can run the tools on your own PC or Device and use it for what, so far, I’ve found it to be somewhat decent at; Auto-Complete, Search and Q&A.
@sorenpeter@darch.dk I really don’t think we can ignore the last ~3 years and a bit of this threading model working quite well for us as a community across a very diverse set of clients and platforms. We cannot just drop something that “mostly works just fine” for the sake of “simplicity”. We have to weight up all the options. There are very real benefits to using content addressing here that really IMO shouldn’t be disregarded so lightly that actually provide a lot of implicit value that users of various clients just don’t get to see. I’d recommend reading up on the ideas behind content addressing before simply dismissing the Twt Hash spec entirely, it wasn’t even written or formalised by me, but I understand how it works quite well 😅 The guy that wrote the spec was (is?) way smarter than I was back then, probably still is now 🤣
@quark@ferengi.one It does not. That is why I’m advocating for not using hashes for treads, but a simpler link-back scheme.
@falsifian@www.falsifian.org Right I see. Yeah maybe we want to avoid that 🤣 I do kind of tend to agree with @xuu in another thread that there isn’t actually anything wrong with our use of Blake2 at all really, but we may want to consider all our options.
@xuu I don’t think this is a lextwt problem tbh. Just the Markdown aprser that yarnd
currently uses. twtxt2html
uses Goldmark and appears to behave better 🤣
@xuu Long while back, I experimented with using similarity algorithms to detect if two Twts were similar enough to be considered an “Edit”.
Right I see what you mean @xuu – Can you maybe come up with a fully fleshed out proposal for this? 🤔 This will help solve the problem of hash collision that result from the Twt/hash space growing larger over time without us having to change anything about the way we construct hashes in the first place. We just assume spec compliant clients will just dynamically handle this as the space grows.
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.
@xuu I think we never progressed this idea further because we weren’t sure how to tell if a hash collision would occur in the first place right? In other words, how does Client A know to expand a hash vs. Client B in a 100% decentralised way? 🤔
Plus these so-called “LLM”(s) have a pretty good grasp of the “shape” of language, so they appear to be quite intelligent or produce intelligible response (when they’re actually quite stupid really).
@eldersnake@we.loveprivacy.club You don’t get left behind at all 🤣 It’s hyped up so much, it’s not even funny anymore. Basically at this point (so far at least) I’ve concluded that all this GenAI / LLM stuff is just a fancy auto-complete and indexing + search reinvented 🤣
Getting a little sick of AI this, AI that. Yes I’ll be left behind while everyone else jumps on the latest thing, but I’m not sure I care.
Oh. looks like its 4 chars. git show 64bf
@prologic@twtxt.net where was that idea?
i feel like we should isolate a subset of markdown that makes sense and built it into lextwt. it already has support for links and images. maybe basic formatting bold, italic. possibly block quote and bullet lists. no tables or footnotes
the stem matching is the same as how GIT does its branch hashes. i think you can stem it down to 2 or 3 sha bytes.
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.
@prologic@twtxt.net the basic idea was to stem the hash.. so you have a hash 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.
@prologic@twtxt.net Wikipedia claims sha1 is vulnerable to a “chosen-prefix attack”, which I gather means I can write any two twts I like, and then cause them to have the exact same sha1 hash by appending something. I guess a twt ending in random junk might look suspcious, but perhaps the junk could be worked into an image URL like
. 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.
@bender@twtxt.net This is the different Markdown parsers being used. Goldmark vs. gomarkdown. We need to switch to Goldmark 😅
@prologic@twtxt.net yes, like they show here: https://ferengi.one/#uebsf7a
Apple A16 SoC Now Manufactured In Arizona
“Apple has begun manufacturing its A16 SoC at the newly-opened TSCM Fab 21 in Arizona,” writes Slashdot reader NoMoreACs. AppleInsider reports: According to sources of Tim Culpan, Phase 1 of TSMC’s Fab 21 in Arizona is making the A16 SoC of the iPhone 14 Pro in “small, but significant, numbers. The production is largely a test for the facility at this stage, but more production is expected … ⌘ Read more
@quark@ferengi.one i’m guessing the quotas text should’ve been emphasized?
@slashdot@feeds.twtxt.net NahahahahHa 🤣 So glad I don’t use LinkedIn 🤦♂️
@falsifian@www.falsifian.org No u don’t sorry. But I tend to agree with you and I think if we continue to use hashes we should keep the remainder in mind as we choose truncation values of N
@falsifian@www.falsifian.org Mostly because Git uses it 🤣 Known attacks that would affect our use? 🤔
@xuu I don’t recall where that discussion ended up being though?
@bender@twtxt.net wut da fuq?! 🤣
@xuu you mean my original idea of basically just automatically detecting Twt edits from the client side?
(delete: 5vbi2ea)
.. would it delete someone elses twt?
@xuu this is where you would need to prove that the editor delete request actually came from that feed author. Hence why integrity is much more important here.
@falsifian@www.falsifian.org without supporting dudes properly though you’re running into GDP issues and the right to forget. 🤣 we’ve had pretty lengthy discussions about this in the past years ago as well, but we never came to a conclusion. We’re all happy with.
@movq@www.uninformativ.de it would work, you are right, however, it has drawbacks, and I think in the long term would create a new set of problems that we would also then have to solve.
@david@collantes.us Hah 🤣
@prologic@twtxt.net :-D Thanks! Things can come in cycles, right? This is simply another one. Another cycle, more personal than the other “alter egos”.
@david@collantes.us We’ll get there soon™ 🔜
@david@collantes.us Hah Welcome back! 😅
@aelaraji@aelaraji.com hey, hey! You are my very first reply! 👋🏻 Cheers!
@david@collantes.us “Hello back” from the other corner of the world! 🫡
Incredibly upset—more than you could imagine—because I already made the first mistake, and corrected it (but twtxt.net got it on it’s cache, ugh!) :‘-( . Can’t wait for editing to become a reality!