@prologic@twtxt.net That’s a completely flat threading model (you can’t reply to replies). Is that intentional?

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

Example:

Alice starts thread href=”https://yarn.girlonthemoon.xyz/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.

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.
  

…

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.

@prologic@twtxt.net That is really great to hear!

If there are opposing opinions we either build a bridge or provide a new parallel road.

Also, I wouldn’t call my opinion a “stance”, I just wish for a better twtxt thanks to everyone’s effort.

The last thing we need to do is decide a proper format for the location-based version.

My proposal is to keep the “Subject extension” unchanged and include the reference to the mention like this:

// Current hash format: starts with a '#'
(#hash) here's text
(#hash) @<nick url> here's text

// New location format: valid URL-like + '#' + TIMESTAMP (verbatim format of feed source)
(url#timestamp) here's text
(url#timestamp) @<nick url> here's text

I think the timestamp should be referenced verbatim to prevent broken references with multiple variations (especially with the many timezones out there) which would also make it even easier to implement for everyone.

I’m sure we can get @zvava@twtxt.net, @lyse@lyse.isobeef.org and everyone else to help on this one.

I personally think we should also consider allowing a generic format to build on custom references, this would allow for creating threads using any custom source (manual, computed or external generated), maybe using a new “Topic extension”, here’s some examples.

// New format for custom references: starts with a '!' maybe?
(!custom) here's text
(!custom) @<nick url> here's text

// A possible "Topic" parse as a thread root:
[!custom] start here
[custom] simpler format

This one is just an idea of mine, but I feel it can unleash new ways of using twtxt.

@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.

@lyse@lyse.isobeef.org @prologic@twtxt.net Can’t we find a middle ground and support both?

The thread is defined by two parts:

1. The hash
   
2. The subject
   

The client/pod generate the hash and index it in it’s database/cache, then it simply query the subject of other posts to find the related posts, right?

In my own client current implementation (using hashes), the only calculation is in the hash generation, the rest is a verbatim copy of the subject (minus the # character), if this is the common implemented approach then adding the location based one is somewhat simple.

function setPostIndex(post) {
    // Current hash approach
    const hash = createHash(post.url, post.timestamp, post.content);

    // New location approach
    const location = post.url + '#' + post.timestamp;

    // Unchanged (probably)
    const subject = post.subject;

    // Index them all
    addToIndex(hash, post);
    addToIndex(location, post);
    addToIndex(subject, post);
}

// Both should work if the index contains both versions
getThreadBySubject('#abcdef') => [post1, post2, post3]; // Hash
getThreadBySubject('https://example.com#2025-01-01T12:00:00') => [post1, post2, post3]; // Location

As I said before, the mention is already location based @<example https://example.com/twtxt.txt>, so I think we should keep that in consideration.

Of course this will lead to a bit of fragmentation (without merging the two) but I think this can make everyone happy.

Otherwise, the only other solution I can think of is a different approach where the value doesn’t matter, allowing to use anything as a reference (hash, location, git commit) for greater flexibility and freedom of implementation (this probably need the use of a fixed “header” for each post, but it can be seen as a separate extension).

@prologic@twtxt.net I know we won’t ever convince each other of the other’s favorite addressing scheme. :-D But I wanna address (haha) your concerns:

1. I don’t see any difference between the two schemes regarding link rot and migration. If the URL changes, both approaches are equally terrible as the feed URL is part of the hashed value and reference of some sort in the location-based scheme. It doesn’t matter.

2. The same is true for duplication and forks. Even today, the “cannonical URL” has to be chosen to build the hash. That’s exactly the same with location-based addressing. Why would a mirror only duplicate stuff with location- but not content-based addressing? I really fail to see that. Also, who is using mirrors or relays anyway? I don’t know of any such software to be honest.

3. If there is a spam feed, I just unfollow it. Done. Not a concern for me at all. Not the slightest bit. And the byte verification is THE source of all broken threads when the conversation start is edited. Yes, this can be viewed as a feature, but how many times was it actually a feature and not more behaving as an anti-feature in terms of user experience?

4. I don’t get your argument. If the feed in question is offline, one can simply look in local caches and see if there is a message at that particular time, just like looking up a hash. Where’s the difference? Except that the lookup key is longer or compound or whatever depending on the cache format.

5. Even a new hashing algorithm requires work on clients etc. It’s not that you get some backwards-compatibility for free. It just cannot be backwards-compatible in my opinion, no matter which approach we take. That’s why I believe some magic time for the switch causes the least amount of trouble. You leave the old world untouched and working.

If these are general concerns, I’m completely with you. But I don’t think that they only apply to location-based addressing. That’s how I interpreted your message. I could be wrong. Happy to read your explanations. :-)

@prologic@twtxt.net I can see the issues mentioned, but I think some can be fixed.

1. The current hash relies on a url field too, by specification, it will use the first # url = <URL> in the feed’s metadata if present, that too can be different from the fetching source, if that field changes it would break the existing hashes too, a better solution would be to use a non-URL key like # feed_id = <UNIQUE_RANDOM_STRING> with the url as fallback.

2. We can prevent duplications if the reference uses that same url field too or the client “collapse” any reference of all the urls defined in the metadata.

3. I agree that hashing based on content is good, but we still use the URL as part of the hashing, which is just a field in the feed, easily replicable by a bot, also noting that edits can also break the hash, for this issue an alternative solution (E.g. a private key not included in the feed) should be considered.

4. For offline reading the source would be downloaded already, the fetching of non followed feeds would fill the gap in the same way mentions does, maybe I’m missing some context on this one.

5. To prevent collisions there was a discussion on extending the hash (forgot if that was already fixed or not), but without a fallback that would break existing clients too, we should think of a parallel format that maintains current implementations unchanged, we are already backward compatible with the original that don’t use threads at all, a mention style format for that could be even more user-friendly for those clients.

We should also keep in mind that the current mention format is already location based (@<example https://example.com/twtxt.txt>) so I’m not that worried about threads working the same way.

Hope to see some other thought about this matter. 🤓

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.

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.

@zvava@twtxt.net @lyse@lyse.isobeef.org I also think a location based reference might be better.

A thread is a single post of a single feed as a root, but the hash has the drawback of not referencing the source, in a distributed network like twtxt it might leave some people out of the whole conversation.

I suggest a simpler format, something like: (#<TIMESTAMP URL>)

This solves three issues:

• Easier referencing: no need to generate a hash, just copy the timestamp and url, it’s also simpler to implement in a client without the rish of collisions when putting things together
  
• Fetchable source: you can find the source within the reference and construct the thread from there
  
• Allow editing: If a post is modified the hash becomes invalid since it depends on [ timestamp, url, content ]

@lyse@lyse.isobeef.org i dont mind if the hash is not backward compatible but im not sure if this is the right way to proceed because the added complexity dealing with two hash versions isnt justified

regular end users wont care to understand how twt hashes are formed, they just want to use twtxt! so i guess i could work in protecting users from themselves by disallowing post edits on old posts or posts with replies, but i’m not fond of this either really. if they want to break a thread, they can just delete the post (though i’ve noticed yarn handling post deletes dubiously…)

on activitypub i do genuinely find myself looking through several month or even year old posts sometimes and deciding to edit/reword them a little to be slightly less confusing, this should be trivial to handle on twtxt which is an infinitely simpler specification

@zvava@twtxt.net It is just completely impossible to make v2 backwards-compatible with v1.

Well, breaking threads on edits is considered a feature by some people. I reckon the only approach to reasonably deal with that property is to carefully review messages before publishing them, thus delaying feed updates. Any typos etc., that have been discovered afterwards, are just left alone. That’s what I and some others do. I only risk editing if the feed has been published very few seconds earlier. More than 20 seconds and I just ignore it. Works alright for the most part.

@prologic@twtxt.net im unsure how i feel about the hash v2 proposal, given it is completely backward incompatible with hash v1 it doesn’t really solve any of the problems with it. it only delays collisions, and still fragments threads on post edits

i skimmed through discussions under other the proposals — i agree humans are very bad at keeping the integrity of the web in tact, but hashes in done in this way make it impossible even for systems to rebuild threads if any post edits have occurred prior to their deployment

search page, bookmarks page, improved thread view (that i will probably improve further), as well as a logo and a whole ui redesign. it is truly all coming together…were i to mark any items off the roadmap :p

replies and following implemented! next step is further parsing of post contents, rendering threads, and then maybe i can finally start adding remote feeds…! though i kinda wanna redo the whole ui ^^’

@movq@www.uninformativ.de Yeah, we’ve seen how this plays out in practice 🤣 @dce@hashnix.club My advice, do what @movq@www.uninformativ.de has hinted at and don’t change the 1st # url = field in your feed. I’m not sure if you had already, but the first url field is kind of important in your feed as it is used as the “Hashing URI” for threading.

wrong thread (:

@lyse@lyse.isobeef.org Multi-Threading. Is. Hard. 🤯 And yes, that blog is great. 👌

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1935344122103308748.html Interesting article on how ChatGPT is rotting your brain 🤣

would lovely to see your creative nickname & brand tie to a nice domain name, rather than some threads.net or x.com 😝😝

One of the nicest things about Go is the language itself, comparing Go to other popular languages in terms of the complexity to learn to be proficient in:

• Go: 25 keywords (Stack Overflow); CSP-style concurrency (goroutines & channels)
  
• Python 2: 30 keywords (TutorialsPoint); GIL-bound threads & multiprocessing (Wikipedia)
  
• Python 3: 35 keywords (Initial Commit); GIL-bound threads, asyncio & multiprocessing (Wikipedia, DEV Community)
  
• Java: 50 keywords (Stack Overflow); threads + java.util.concurrent (Wikipedia)
  
• C++: 82 keywords (Stack Overflow); std::thread, atomics & futures (en.cppreference.com)
  
• JavaScript: 38 keywords (Stack Overflow); single-threaded event loop & async/await, Web Workers (Wikipedia)
  
• Ruby: 42 keywords (Stack Overflow); GIL-bound threads (MRI), fibers & processes (Wikipedia)
  

@sorenpeter@darch.dk Yes, there are interesting things that can be incorporated to see how they work.
The issue of allowing the use of Z for UTC is interesting. I think I should add a brief explanation.
The url issue is for a debate :D . Maybe an issue could be opened. My opinion is that it is necessary to leave it as it is right now because otherwise the thread system, or replies, may have problems (404s). It’s all a matter of discussion.
I like your idea of contact. I will add it.
Thanks to you for your feedback!!!

@andros@twtxt.andros.dev @eapl.me@eapl.me Still lots of bugs in my client. 🥴 I’ll try to fix it next week.

And yes, using the same timestamp twice will very likely break threads.

@movq@www.uninformativ.de ok, I have included a small modification in the documentation to allow you to reply in your own thread: https://texudus.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
You can see my reply: https://andros.dev/texudus.txt
Don’t delete anything and give me time to make my modifications to the client.

@andros@twtxt.andros.dev I set up a test feed here:

https://www.uninformativ.de/texudus.txt

I made some preliminary adjustments to my client so that it can work with the different threading model. (And I totally get the concerns, this can be quite a bit of work. Especially in a large code base like Yarn.)

@bender@twtxt.net Mainly the bsd.cafe ones. I like how the minimalist single column profiles look. Image embeds are full width and reading through threads feels nice (as in it doesn’t feel like pealing layers upon layers of a fresh onion).

just for the record I didn’t say I was leaving the twtxt ‘community’ (did I?) but than I have other priorities to focus on in the following months. Please don’t be condescending, is not cool.

Development of Timeline (PHP client) has been stale for some reasons, a few of them in my side, so I think it won’t be updated to the new thread model, at least pretty soon.
So is not that I’ll stop using twtxt, just the client I use won’t be compatible with the new model in July.

If we must stick to hashes for threading, can we maybe make it mandatory to always include a reference to the original twt URL when writing replies?

Instead of

(<a href="https://yarn.girlonthemoon.xyz/search?q=%23123467">#123467</a>) hello foo bar

you would have

(<a href="https://yarn.girlonthemoon.xyz/search?q=%23123467">#123467</a> http://foo.com/tw.txt) hello foo bar

or maybe even:

(<a href="https://yarn.girlonthemoon.xyz/search?q=%23123467">#123467</a> 2025-04-30T12:30:31Z http://foo.com/tw.txt) hello foo bar

This would greatly help in reconstructing broken threads, since hashes are obviously unfortunately one-way tickets. The URL/timestamp would not be used for threading, just for discovery of feeds that you don’t already follow.

I don’t insist on including the timestamp, but having some idea which feed we’re talking about would help a lot.

@eapl.me@eapl.me I honestly believe you are overreacting here a little bit 🤣 I completely emphasize with you, it can be pretty tough to feel part of a community at times and run a project with a kind of “democracy” or “vote by committee”. But one thing that life has taught me about open source projects and especially decentralised ecosystems is that this doesn’t really work.

It isn’t that I’ve not considered all the other options on the table (which can still be), it’s just that I’ve made a decision as the project lead that largely helped trigger a rebirth of the use of Twtxt back in July 1 2020. There are good reasons not to change the threading model right now, as the changes being proposed are quite disruptive and don’t consider all the possible things that could go wrong.

@bmallred@staystrong.run Hehe, @bender@twtxt.net is gonna be upset with you for “making up a thread/subject” 🤣

@bender@twtxt.net Nah it’s there but it’s a reply to a thread that isn’t found here hmmm 🤔

@abucci@anthony.buc.ci Haha you’ll have to forgive me, this thread is over a week old now and I’m a bit lost now 🤣 even though I can now see the entire thread, what are we saying was messed up and is garbled? 🤔

hehe, just catching up on this thread! I’ve replied in another that using periods/dots sounds good to me as it’s usual in domains, but perhaps some agreement would be needed. For now I think any character is valid as long as it is not a space.
For example we are using this for PHP twtxt.php#L153

I open a discussion thread: why didn’t the registers work? Will they work later?
#twtxt

After reading you, @eapl.me@eapl.me, I’ll tell you my point of view.
In my opinion, a feed does not have to be equivalent to a timeline. A timeline is a representation of the feed adapted to a user. You may not be interested in seeing other people’s threads or DMs. But perhaps they are interested in seeing mentions or DMs directed at them. It is important not to fall into the trap. With that clarification…
I insist, this is my point of view, it is not an absolute truth: I don’t think extensions should be respectful of customers who are no longer maintained.
We cannot have a system that is simple, backwards compatible and extensible all at the same time. We have to give up some of the 3 points. I would not like to give up simplicity because it will then make it harder to maintain the customers who do stay. Therefore, I think it is better to give up backwards compatibility and play with new formulas in the extensions. I don’t think it’s a good idea to make a hash keep so much load: a hashtag, a thread and also a DM.

@bender@twtxt.net Hehe, thanks for fixing this (was) broken thread 🧵 Haha 🤣

Am I the only one that’s confused by the discussions, and then the voting we had on the whole threading model? 🤔 I’m not even sure what I voted for, but I know it wasn’t the one that won haha 🤣 (which I’m still very much against for based on an intuition, experience and lots of code writing lately).

@prologic@twtxt.net Shit like what? References/threads? 😅

Timeline of Evolution of Twtxt/Yarn.social:

• 2016 – Twtxt created by John Downey: plain text + HTTP = minimalist microblogging
  
• 2017–2019 – Community builds CLI tools, but adoption remains niche
  
• 2020 – Yarn.social launched by @prologic@twtxt.net with federation, threading, UI
  
• 2021–2023 – Pods sync, user mentions, blocking, search, and media support added
  
• 2024+ – Yarn.social becomes the reference Twtxt platform, with active federated pods

I asked ChatGPT what it knows about Twtxt 😂 And surprisingly it’s rather accurate:

Twtxt is a minimalist, decentralized microblogging format introduced by John Downey in 2016. It uses plain text files served over HTTP—no accounts, databases, or APIs.
In 2020, James Mills (@prologic@twtxt.net) launched Yarn.social, an extended, federated implementation with user discovery, threads, mentions, and a full web UI.
Both share the same .twtxt.txt format but differ in complexity and social features.

@kat@yarn.girlonthemoon.xyz It’s more like a cache, it stores things like “timestamp of the most recent twt we’ve seen per feed” or “last modification date” (to be used with HTTP’s if-modified-since header). You can nuke these files at any time, it might just result in more traffic (e.g., always getting a full response instead of just “HTTP 304 nope, didn’t change”).

@quark@ferengi.one Yes, I often write a couple of twts, don’t publish them, then sometimes notice a mistake and want to edit it. You’re right, as soon as stuff is published, threads are going to break/fork by edits.

@quark@ferengi.one No editing old Twts that are the root of a thread with replies in the ecosystem. Just results in a fork. Unless the client has an implementation that does not store Twts keyed by Hash.

Show HN: HN Watercooler – listen to HN threads as an audio conversation
Comments ⌘ Read more

@movq@www.uninformativ.de this settles it then. Hopefully @andros@twtxt.andros.dev can make slight corrections, and broken threads will be a thing of the past! Thanks!

@andros@twtxt.andros.dev maybe @movq@www.uninformativ.de, @lyse@lyse.isobeef.org, @prologic@twtxt.net, and @xuu@txt.sour.is can explain what’s going on here, or which approach is the right one. One thing seems to be happening: your approach is breaking “conversations” (threads), as the other clients seemingly do not agree.

The case of the UI thread that hung in a kernel call
Comments ⌘ Read more

@david@collantes.us Yeah, we’ve been debugging that a bit yesterday. Looks like the wrong input (sometimes) gets fed to the hash function → broken threads.