I finally decided to do a few experiments with 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.

The three things we briefly talk about tonight (your morning), so that I don’t forget:

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).

@bender@twtxt.net 👌

@movq@www.uninformativ.de Yeah I think what I’m proposing here is a more pragmatic approach to improvements that will last much longer than our first interaction (~4 years and going strong, but running into minor issues with edit/identify and some collssions_). This scope of changes is much easier to implement for yarnd and I suspect jenny too. and as indicated in here quite easy to have a reference implementation written in Bash with standard UNIX tools.

@movq@www.uninformativ.de Makes sense 👌 I think it’s fair to implement any spec changes incrementaly for sure 👌

And yea since yarnd has a store it’s a bit easier to support edit / delete actions 😅