@movq@www.uninformativ.de @prologic@twtxt.net Another option would be: when you edit a twt, prefix the new one with (#[old hash]) and some indication that it’s an edited version of the original tweet with that hash. E.g. if the hash used to be abcd123, the new version should start “(#abcd123) (redit)”.

What I like about this is that clients that don’t know this convention will still stick it in the same thread. And I feel it’s in the spirit of the old pre-hash (subject) convention, though that’s before my time.

I guess it may not work when the edited twt itself is a reply, and there are replies to it. Maybe that could be solved by letting twts have more than one (subject) prefix.

But the great thing about the current system is that nobody can spoof message IDs.

I don’t think twtxt hashes are long enough to prevent spoofing.

⤋ Read More

@prologic@twtxt.net you wrote:

“[…] they can trust that the hash is a cryptographic representing of the thread they’re replying to, no matter what.”

It isn’t about trust, is it? There has to be some kind of check to verify the hash is valid, no?

⤋ Read More

Participate

Login or Register to join in on this yarn.