@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.

@asquare@asquare.srht.site This is absolutely true! 💯 However the natural behavior of editing a post is the same as forking. So from a community perspective, we’re actaully okay with how that works in reality. I think we’re all getting a bit too hung up on “exactness”. One of the things I think we’re finding hard to reconcile is the fine line between a decentralised ecosystem and distributed system.

I want it very much to remain decentralised. That means Content-based addressing makes sense, because you can have integrity about what a Twt Hash means. I don’t really mind if a thread gets forked because the OP was edited, that’s actually how forking works anyway 😅

@prologic@twtxt.net right, but “regular” forks have parents. An edited twt—currently—has none. Edits just create a new branch-less leaf.