@prologic@twtxt.net oops, I’m sorry to see disagreement leading to draining emotions.

It remind me a bit of the Conclave movie where every part wanted to defend their vision and there is only a winner. If one wins the other loses. Like the political side of many leaders and volunteers representing a broad community. I don’t think that’s the case here. Most of us (in not all) should ‘win’.

I can only add that isn’t nice to listen that ‘my idea and effort’ is not what the rest of the people expect. I personally have a kind of issue with public rejection, but I also like to argue, discuss and even fight a bit. “A gem cannot be polished without friction, nor a man perfected without trials,” they say.
This exercise and belonging to this community also brings me good feelings of smart people trying to solve a human and technical problem, which is insanely difficult to get ‘right’.

I genuinely hope we can understand each other, and even with our different and respectful thoughts on the same thing, we might reach an agreement on what’s the best for most people.

Good vibes to everyone!

Hi everyone,
I’ve drafted a Request for Comments (RFC) to improve how threads work in twtxt:
https://git.mills.io/yarnsocial/twtxt.dev/issues/18

I’d love your feedback! Please share your thoughts on anything that could be better explained, check if the proposed dates work for everyone, and I invite you to join the discussion…

Hey everyone!

About the idea of improving the “thread” extension, what if we set aside March 2025 to gather proposals and thoughts from everyone? We could then vote on them at the end of the month to see if the change and migration are worth it.

The voting could include client maintainers (and maybe even users too). That way, we get a good mix of perspectives before taking a decision in a decent timelapse.

What do you think? If this sounds good, we can start agreeing on this. Let me know your thoughts!

Hehe, this is amazing:

If OpenSSL were a GUI

Image

another one would be to allow changing public keys over time (as it may be a good practice [0]). A syntax like the following could help to know what public key you used to encrypt the message, and which private key the client should use to decrypt it:

!<nick url> <encrypted_message> <public_key_hash_7_chars>

Also I’d remove support for storing the message as hex, only allowing base64 (more compact, aiming for a minimalistic spec, etc.)

[0] https://www.brandonchecketts.com/archives/its-2023-you-should-be-using-an-ed25519-ssh-key-and-other-current-best-practices

my first thought is that encrypting messages with Elliptic keys is not as easy as with RSA, although I tried doing something similar a few months ago with ECIES
https://github.com/eapl-gemugami/owl/blob/main/src/app/controller/ecies_demo.php

interesting idea. I’m not personally interested on having DM conversations on twtxt (for now), although I see the community could be interested in.

I’d suggest to enable the Discussion section in your Github repo to receive comments, as we did for timeline https://github.com/sorenpeter/timeline/discussions

I’ll be using another URL for this twtxt.

The older one will redirect to the new for a while (I’m not sure what would happen if you follow both URLs, I assume it’s better to add the new one and remove the older)

Please update your following list to https://eapl.me/tw.txt !