prologic

twtxt.net

Problems are Solved by Method\" 🇦🇺👨‍💻👨‍🦯🏹♔ 🏓⚯ 👨‍👩‍👧‍👧🛥 -- James Mills (operator of twtxt.net / creator of Yarn.social 🧶)

In-reply-to » TNO Threading (draft):
Each origin feed numbers new threads (tno:N). Replies carry both (tno:N) and (ofeed:<origin-url>). Thread identity = (ofeed, tno).

This is possibly the only other threading model I can come up with for Twtxt that I think I can get behind.

⤋ Read More
In-reply-to » TNO Threading (draft):
Each origin feed numbers new threads (tno:N). Replies carry both (tno:N) and (ofeed:<origin-url>). Thread identity = (ofeed, tno).

Example:

Alice starts thread href=”https://we.loveprivacy.club/search?q=%2342:”>#42:**

2025-09-25T12:00:00Z (tno:42) Launching storage design review.

Bob replies:

2025-09-25T12:05:00Z (tno:42) (ofeed:https://alice.example/twtxt.txt
) I think compaction stalls under load.

Carol replies to Bob:

2025-09-25T12:08:00Z (tno:42) (ofeed:https://alice.example/twtxt.txt
) Token bucket sounds good.

⤋ Read More

TNO Threading (draft):
Each origin feed numbers new threads (tno:N). Replies carry both (tno:N) and (ofeed:<origin-url>). Thread identity = (ofeed, tno).

  • Roots: (tno:N) (implicit ofeed=self).
  • Replies: (tno:N) (ofeed:<url>).
  • Clients: increment tno locally for new threads, copy tags on reply.
  • Subjects optional, not required.

⤋ Read More
In-reply-to » (#altkl2a) Here is just a small list of things™ that I'm aware will break, some quite badly, others in minor ways:

I would personally rather see something like this:

2025-09-25T22:41:19+10:00	Hello World
2025-09-25T22:41:19+10:00	(#kexv5vq https://example.com/twtxt.html#:~:text=2025-09-25T22:41:19%2B10:00) Hey!

Preserving both content-based addressing as well as location-based addressing and text fragment linking.

⤋ Read More
In-reply-to » (#altkl2a) Here is just a small list of things™ that I'm aware will break, some quite badly, others in minor ways:

I was trying to say (badly):

That’s kind of my position on this. If we are going to make significant changes in the threading model, let’s keep content based addressing, but also improve the user experience. Answering your question, yes I think we can do some combination of both.

⤋ Read More
In-reply-to » (#altkl2a) Here is just a small list of things™ that I'm aware will break, some quite badly, others in minor ways:

@alexonit@twtxt.alessandrocutolo.it Yhays kind of love you!! Stance and position on this. If we are going to make chicken changes in the threading model, let’s keep content based addressing, but also improve the use of experience. So in fact, in order to answer your question, I think yes, we can do some kind of combination of both.

⤋ Read More
In-reply-to » (#altkl2a) Here is just a small list of things™ that I'm aware will break, some quite badly, others in minor ways:

@lyse@lyse.isobeef.org I don’t think there’s any point in continuing the discussion of Location vs. Content based addressing.

I want us to preserve Content based addressing.

Let’s improve the user experience and fix the hash commission problems.

⤋ Read More

Here is just a small list of things™ that I’m aware will break, some quite badly, others in minor ways:

  1. Link rot & migrations: domain changes, path reshuffles, CDN/mirror use, or moving from txt → jsonfeed will orphan replies unless every reader implements perfect 301/410 history, which they won’t.
  2. Duplication & forks: mirrors/relays produce multiple valid locations for the same post; readers see several “parents” and split the thread.
  3. Verification & spam-resistance: content addressing lets you dedupe and verify you’re pointing at exactly the post you meant (hash matches bytes). Location anchors can be replayed or spoofed more easily unless you add signing and canonicalization.
  4. Offline/cached reading: without the original URL being reachable, readers can’t resolve anchors; with hashes they can match against local caches/archives.
  5. Ecosystem churn: all existing clients, archives, and tools that assume content-derived IDs need migrations, mapping layers, and fallback logic. Expect long-lived threads to fracture across implementations.

⤋ Read More

We’ve been discussing the idea of changing the threading model from Content-based Addressing to Location-based addressing for years now. The problem is quite complex, but I feel I have to keep reminding y’all of the potential perils of changing this and the pros/cons of each model:

With content-addressed threading, a reply points at something that’s intrinsically identified (hash of author/feed URI + timestamp + content). That ID never changes as long as the content doesn’t. Switching to location-based anchors makes the reply target extrinsic—it now depends on where the post currently lives. In a pull-based, decentralised network, locations drift. The moment they do, thread identity fragments.

⤋ Read More
In-reply-to » Now that’s interesting. Some of these bots start crawling at URLs like this:

Chances are the database bought wasn’t cheap at all and was aold by some scam company that probably ripped them from six figures or more for a database that’s full of rubbish. 🤣

⤋ Read More

@dce@hashnix.club No worries 😌 It’s all documented in our soecs, it’s not such a common thing that we’ve felt the great need to really solve, we’re aware folks want to sometimes have their feed on several protocols, and that’s totally fine™ 😅

⤋ Read More