So, uh, did anyone but me notice that the last character of a twt hash is always either an a or a q? Which is the natural consequence of taking the last digit in the base32 representation of a 256-bit hash – 256 is not evenly divisible by 5 ! That final character is made up of one bit of actual information and 4 bits of padding.

⤋ Read More

@asquare@asquare.srht.site We’ve collectively as a community (welcome to the community too! 🥳) had a many-week, multi-thread debate over this. It all boils down to Content Addressing vs. Location Addressing and the benefits, pros/cons of each approach. Ultimately though threads in Twtxt take advantage of a convention we formalized as the Twt Subject. This is combined with a Location-based Addressing, the Twt Hash extension. In the end we are likely to stay with this approach, but fix the parameters we use and truction.

⤋ Read More

In any case, yes Content addressing can break threads when the original content is edited that’s for sure, however we’ve since agreed and realized that technically speaking, we can actually identify from a clients perspective, whether an edit took place.

⤋ Read More

@prologic@twtxt.net With respect, a client can not identify whether an edit took place. Not unless that same client witnessed both the original twt and the edited one. This won’t be the case if a person you’re following is joining a thread started by people you aren’t following after the first twt of that thread has already been modified. Or if you’re knocked offline by a multi-hour power outage that spans then entire time window between a twt getting uploaded and modified.

⤋ Read More

Participate

Login to join in on this yarn.