(#v5yaeha) @movq I _really_ appreciate you saying this! Thank you! 🙇‍♂️ To be fair @anth we just took something that we were observing happening in the real-world and "formalized" it. You can thanks @dbohdan for the initial work on Twt Hash(es) really, and @lyse for making a a format document for it!

@anth @movq @prologic (#v5yaeha) The hashes are certainly not very elegant, but as an afterthought make the twtxt universe much more pleasant as movq said. Are you really reading the twts in in its raw form, anth?

@anth @movq @prologic @darch @xuu (#v5yaeha) In my opinion twt hash and subject ideally would be dedicated fields in a twt, similar to `Message-ID` and `In-Reply-To` e-mail headers. Something like `timestamp \t twt-id \t reply-id \t text`. But since twtxt was invented as simple "status" thingies, nobody thought of replies in the beginning, I reckon. And then it happend, what will usually be the case: people use it differently than originally imagined. So the twt hash and twt subjects were bolted on. It obviously works, but it also has its drawbacks. If the originating client would generate a globally unique ID, we wouldn't have the problem of updated twts breaking conversations.

@anth @movq @prologic @lyse @darch @xuu (#v5yaeha) Yes, the presentation layer can fix a few things. My client hides the subjects completely to save space and I rarely care about the exact hashes. For debugging they can come in handy.

@movq (#mvyrjuq) Luckily there is Subversion? :-P

(#v5yaeha) @movq No argument that threading is an improvement. But I think (#hash) does that, and I think figuring out how to search should mostly be up to the client.

(#v5yaeha) @anth @lyse @movq Actually... I _think_ we could change the Twt Hash extension a bit here and remove the need to fully qualify and expand them into full URLs. The reason we did that in the first place was we were just extending the `@` syntax from the original spec and just using a different prefix `@` for mentions `#` for tags, etc. But this is probably unnecessary as the hashes themselves are content addresses and don't need to be URLs. Hmmm? 🤔

(#v5yaeha) @movq As for developing a Twtxt 2.0 spec/format/protocol, I'm not sure. On one hand @buckket _seems_ to be quite upset that we've used his format/spec and named a "codebase" with a similar/identical name or something, actually I'm not really sure I'm just guessing, but its part of the rebranding issue at place here... So maybe we should? Maybe we should just develop our own protocol entirely? I'm not sure. It really isn't up to me per se now as there **is** a community to think about that spans multiple pods now.

@movq @prologic (#4qoykfa) Thank you! It was fucking cold with the wind and the sun tricked me into wearing my light jacket rather than the much more appropriate winter jacket. Oh well.

@movq (#mvyrjuq) Luckily we do have proper version control systems these days! I just remember when we used SVN for a project back in the days and I routinely had to recheckout (clone in DVCS-speak) everything, because my repo was suddenly irrepairably fucked up once again.