no my fault your client can’t handle a little editing ;)

@sorenpeter@darch.dk hmm, how does your client handles “a little editing”? I am sure threads would break just as well. 😉

@quark@ferengi.one It does not. That is why I’m advocating for not using hashes for treads, but a simpler link-back scheme.

@prologic@twtxt.net how about hashing a combination of nick/timestamp, or url/timestamp only, and not the twtxt content? On edit those will not change, so no breaking of threads. I know, I know, just adding noise here. :-P

@prologic@twtxt.net I know the role of the current hash is to allow referencing (replies and, thus, threads), and it also represents a “unique” way to verify a twtxt hasn’t been tampered with. Is that second so important, if we are trying to allow edits? I know if feels good to be able to verify, but in reality, how often one does it?

@prologic@twtxt.net I read it. I understand it. Hopefully a solution can be agreed upon that solves the editing issue, whilst maintaining the cryptographic hash.