Confession:

I’ve never found microblogging like twtxt or the Fediverse or any other “modern” social media to be truly fulfilling/satisfying.

The reason is that it is focused so much on people. You follow this or that person, everybody spends time making a nice profile page, the posts are all very “ego-centric”. Seriously, it feels like everybody is on an ego-trip all the time (this is much worse on the Fediverse, not so much here on twtxt).

I miss the days of topic-based forums/groups. A Linux forum here, a forum about programming there, another one about a certain game. Stuff like that. That was really great – and it didn’t even suffer from the need to federate.

Sadly, most of these forums are dead now. Especially the nerds spend a lot of time on the Fediverse now and have abandoned forums almost completely.

On Mastodon, you can follow hashtags, which somewhat emulates a topic-based experience. But it’s not that great and the protocol isn’t meant to be used that way (just read the snac2 docs on this issue). And the concept of “likes” has eliminated lots of the actual user interaction. ☹️

that said, and reading to @sorenpeter@darch.dk and @andros@twtxt.andros.dev I have new thoughts. I assume that this won’t change anyone’s opinions or priorities, so it makes no harm sharing them.

It’s always tempting to use something that already exists (like X, Masto, Bsky, etc.) rather that building anything through effort and disagreement until reaching to something useful and valuable together. A ‘social service’ is only useful if people is using it.

I’ll add that I haven’t lost interest on the ‘hacky’ part of twtxt about developing tools, protocols, and extensions as a community. It’s the appealing part! It’s a nice hobby to have, shared with random people across the world.
But this is not the right way for me, and makes me feel that I’m unwelcome to propose something different (after watching replies to my previous twt). Feels like “If you don’t agree, you are free to leave, we’ll miss you.” Naah, not cool. I’ve lived that many times before, and nowadays I don’t have enough spare time and energy for a hobby like that.

Let’s see what happens next with the micro-community!

Nobody writes emails by hand using RFC 5322 anymore, nor do we manually send them through telnet and SMTP commands. The days of crafting emails in raw format and dialing into servers are long gone. Modern email clients and services handle it all seamlessly in the background, making email easier than ever to send and receive—without needing to understand the protocols or formats behind it! #Email #SMTP #RFC #Automation

i feel like i’ve stumbled upon an alternative internet universe, gemini protocol, the small internet and a counter-cultural world!

I’m thinking of building a hardened peering protocol for Yarn.social’s yarnd: pods establish cryptographic identities, exchange signed /info and /twt payloads with signature verification, ensuring authenticity, integrity, and spoof-proof identity validation across the distributed network.

Spring 83: a draft protocol intended to suggest new ways of relating online
Comments ⌘ Read more

@prologic@twtxt.net OH SHIT using this for a protocol like gopher is smart! might have to try that for gemini so i don’t have to keep a port open for that

@prologic@twtxt.net @aelaraji@aelaraji.com It depends! If you are working with rsync and scp with the same protocol… I want to know! 😁

@aelaraji@aelaraji.com What protocol do you use?

Hacking the Postgres Wire Protocol
Comments ⌘ Read more

exwm: Emacs X Windows Manager
EXWM (Emacs X Window Manager) is a full-featured tiling X window manager for Emacs built on top of XELB. ↫ exwm GitHub page It supports both tiling and stacking windows, dynamic workspaces, RandR, a system tray, and a lot more. XELB stands for X protocol Emacs Lisp Binding, and it’s a “pure Elisp implementation of X11 protocol based on the XML description files from XCB project”. ⌘ Read more

@prologic@twtxt.net twtxt DM is not a serious DM protocol.

Fascinating read on the emerging Model Context Protocol — a new standard for integrating LLMs with agents and tools.

A2A Protocol – Agent-to-Agent Communication
Comments ⌘ Read more

@bender@twtxt.net thinked about Gemini protocol. Why corporations shit this name with cryptocurrency and LLMs?

well, I assume by syntax you mean Gemtext (which I like a lot, my personal blog is built on top of it), so I think it might work for twtxt clients…

I knew of twtxt in Gemini Antenna, so at least the 2017 spec might work on that protocol. I think the main issue with extensions is that they weren’t designed with many URLs and protocols in mind.

Also I have to admit that the Gemini community significantly reduced in the last few years. I don’t know how worth it is to add support for Gemini now.

@eapl.me@eapl.me I agree. The syntax is weird inside Gemini and twtxt is made with the http protocol in mind and Gemini doesn’t work with some extensions.

well… it has been an opportunity to build an artisanal microblogging client on top of a minimalist protocol. I agree on the hacker toy part.

And of course it’s about being part of a niche community which is (mostly) amazing, and nurturing. As there is almost no one writing in my native spanish, it has been an interesting challenge to share my thoughts in english, as well.

I couldn’t say it’s a ‘social network’ per se, I think it lack many engagement things usually associated with social networks, although it has a social part of igniting discussions, learnings and behavioral changes, which is the meaning of social for me.

What would happen if we didn’t use TCP or UDP?
At some point, I wondered—what if I sent a packet using a transport protocol that didn’t exist? Not TCP, not UDP, not even ICMP—something completely made up. Would the OS let it through? Would it get stopped before it even left my machine? Would routers ignore it, or would some middlebox kill it on sight? Could it actually move faster by slipping past common firewall rules? No idea. So I had to try. ↫ Hawzen Okay so the end result is that i … ⌘ Read more

12 years of incubating Wayland color management
The Wayland color-management protocol extension has landed on Feb 13th, 2025, in upstream wayland-protocols repository in the staging directory. It was released with wayland-protocols 1.41. The extension enables proper interactions between traditional (sRGB), Wide Color Gamut (WCG), and High Dynamic Range (HDR) image sources and displays once implemented in Wayland compositors and used in applications. Of course, a protocol is just a la … ⌘ Read more

@prologic@twtxt.net All the URL are missing the protocol part (https://) and my markdown parser does not know how to handle but I see yarnd does it just fine.

@falsifian@www.falsifian.org
it look like your markdown image tags are missing the protocol part (https://) so they don’t render at least on my server: https://darch.dk/timeline/conv/3vtnszq

@doesnm@doesnm.p.psf.lt Threema is also known to be crippled to state actors and the five eyes. It has known crypto protocol weaknesses that can leak metadata.

It’s ok for most encrypted protocols (In salty you can fetch other messages but can’t decrypt). Btw i think recipient can be removed so if someone seen message they tried to decypt, if can’t - its not message to you

Why not nostr way? https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/blob/master/05.md#showing-just-the-domain-as-an-identifier

One benefit with bluesky is your username is also a website. And not a clunky URL with slashes and such. I wish twtxt adopted that. I have advocated for webfinger to for twtxt to let us do something like it with usernames. Nostr has something like it

By default the bsky.social urls all redirect to their feeds like: hmpxvt.bsky.social
Many custom urls will redirect to some kind of linktree or just their feed cwebonline.com or la.bonne.petite.sour.is or if you are a major outlet just to your web presence like https://theonion.com‬ or https://netflix.com

Its just good SEO practice

Do all nostr addresses take you to the person if typed into a browser? That is the secret sauce.
No having to go to some random page first. no accounts. no apps to install. just direct to the person.

for example, ejabberd, redka, and litefs. all using sqlite+litefs for their database needs allows agents to communicate over xmpp, matrix, mqtt, and sip. other applications can use sqlite for storage or speak the redis protocol to redka. ejabberd can also handle file uploads, static file publishing, identity, and various other web application services. when scaling, litefs integrates with consul to manage replication which grants the network access to service disco, encrypted mesh networking, and various other features that can be used to build secure service grids. ejabberd and redka can be scaled to multiple nodes that coordinate over the litefs replication protocol without any changes to the db storage config. other components can be configured to plug into this framework fairly easily as well. we keep the network config fairly simple by linking nodes together with yggdrasil to flatten the address space and then linking app nodes together using consul to provide secure routing for the local grid service. yggdrasil also offers utility for buliding federated networks in a similarly flat address space, for more secure communications i2p is also available in yggdrasil mode. minibase is wonderful, and we have not even started to talk about secure IoT.

@lyse@lyse.isobeef.org

Regarding section 4 about feed discovery: Yeah, non-HTTP transport protocols are an issue as they do not have User-Agent headers. How exactly do you envision the discovery_url to work, though?

This is from a twt of mine from January 2022:

https://www.uninformativ.de/files/twtxt/2022%2D01%2D22%2D%2Dfollow%2Dendpoint.md

(This idea gets lost all the time, so I put it into a file now. 😅)

Not sure if this is what @eapl.me@eapl.me had in mind, obviously.

Thank you, @eapl.me@eapl.me! No need to apologize in the introduction, all good. :-)

Section 3: I’m a bit on the fence regarding documenting the HTTP caching headers. It’s a very general HTTP thing, so there is nothing special about them for twtxt. No need for the Twtxt Specification to actually redo it. But on the other hand, a short hint could certainly help client developers and feed authors. Maybe it’s thanks to my distro’s Ngninx maintainer, but I did not configure anything for the Last-Modified and ETag headers to be included in the response, the web server just already did it automatically.

The more that I think about it while typing this reply, the more I think your recommendation suggestion is actually really great. It will definitely beneficial for client developers. In almost all client implementation cases I’d say one has to actually do something specifically in the code to send the If-Modified-Since and/or If-None-Match request headers. There is no magic that will do it automatically, as one has to combine data from the last response with the new request.

But I also came across feeds that serve zero response headers that make caching possible at all. So, an explicit recommendation enables feed authors to check their server setups. Yeah, let’s absolutely do this! :-)

Regarding section 4 about feed discovery: Yeah, non-HTTP transport protocols are an issue as they do not have User-Agent headers. How exactly do you envision the discovery_url to work, though? I wouldn’t limit the transports to HTTP(S) in the Twtxt Specification, though. It’s up to the client to decide which protocols it wants to support.

Since I currently rely on buckket’s twtxt client to fetch the feeds, I can only follow http(s):// (and file://) feeds. But in tt2 I will certainly add some gopher:// and gemini:// at some point in time.

Some time ago, @movq@www.uninformativ.de found out that some Gopher/Gemini users prefer to just get an e-mail from people following them: https://twtxt.net/twt/dikni6q So, it might not even be something to be solved as there is no problem in the first place.

Section 5 on protocol support: You’re right, announcing the different transports in the url metadata would certainly help. :-)

Section 7 on emojis: Your idea of TUI/CLI avatars is really intriguing I have to say. Maybe I will pick this up in tt2 some day. :-)

@eapl.me@eapl.me here are my replies (somewhat similar to Lyse’s and James’)

1. Metadata in twts: Key=value is too complicated for non-hackers and hard to write by hand. So if there is a need then we should just use #NSFS or the alt-text file in markdown image syntax ![NSFW](url.to/image.jpg) if something is NSFW

2. IDs besides datetime. When you edit a twt then you should preserve the datetime if location-based addressing should have any advantages over content-based addressing. If you change the timestamp the its a new post. Just like any other blog cms.

3. Caching, Yes all good ideas, but that is more a task for the clients not the serving of the twtxt.txt files.

4. Discovery: User-agent for discovery can become better. I’m working on a wrapper script in PHP, so you don’t need to go to Apaches log-files to see who fetches your feed. But for other Gemini and gopher you need to relay on something else. That could be using my webmentions for twtxt suggestion, or simply defining an email metadata field for letting a person know you follow their feed. Interesting read about why WebMetions might be a bad idea. Twtxt being much simple that a full featured IndieWeb sites, then a lot of the concerns does not apply here. But that’s the issue with any open inbox. This is hard to solve without some form of (centralized or community) spam moderation.

5. Support more protocols besides http/s. Yes why not, if we can make clients that merge or diffident between the same feed server by multiples URLs

6. Languages: If the need is big then make a separate feed. I don’t mind seeing stuff in other langues as it is low. You got translating tool if you need to know whats going on. And again when there is a need for easier switching between posting to several feeds, then it’s about building clients with a UI that makes it easy. No something that should takes up space in the format/protocol.

7. Emojis: I’m not sure what this is about. Do you want to use emojis as avatar in CLI clients or it just about rendering emojis?

making my own browser framework that can use something like librewolf as a web renderer and other graphical components and runtimes for other protocols. though I think that means that i’ll be retiring tomo-el-fuego in favor of a different runtime architecture. there’s a lot that I like about inferno, but modernizing it enough to actually use anywhere is another story. I doubt this is the end of my infernal experiments, but I can only do so much at a time innit.

Righto, @eapl.me@eapl.me, ta for the writeup. Here we go. :-)

Metadata on individual twts are too much for me. I do like the simplicity of the current spec. But I understand where you’re coming from.

Numbering twts in a feed is basically the attempt of generating message IDs. It’s an interesting idea, but I reckon it is not even needed. I’d simply use location based addressing (feed URL + ‘#’ + timestamp) instead of content addressing. If one really wanted to, one could hash the feed URL and timestamp, but the raw form would actually improve disoverability and would not even require a richer client. But the majority of twtxt users in the last poll wanted to stick with content addressing.

yarnd actually sends If-Modified-Since request headers. Not only can I observe heaps of 304 responses for yarnds in my access log, but in Cache.FetchFeeds(…) we can actually see If-Modified-Since being deployed when the feed has been retrieved with a Last-Modified response header before: https://git.mills.io/yarnsocial/yarn/src/commit/98eee5124ae425deb825fb5f8788a0773ec5bdd0/internal/cache.go#L1278

Turns out etags with If-None-Match are only supported when yarnd serves avatars (https://git.mills.io/yarnsocial/yarn/src/commit/98eee5124ae425deb825fb5f8788a0773ec5bdd0/internal/handlers.go#L158) and media uploads (https://git.mills.io/yarnsocial/yarn/src/commit/98eee5124ae425deb825fb5f8788a0773ec5bdd0/internal/media_handlers.go#L71). However, it ignores possible etags when fetching feeds.

I don’t understand how the discovery URLs should work to replace the User-Agent header in HTTP(S) requests. Do you mind to elaborate?

Different protocols are basically just a client thing.

I reckon it’s best to just avoid mixing several languages in one feed in the first place. Personally, I find it okay to occasionally write messages in other languages, but if that happens on a more regularly basis, I’d definitely create a different feed for other languages.

Isn’t the emoji thing “just” a client feature? So, feed do not even have to state any emojis. As a user I’d configure my client to use a certain symbol for feed ABC. Currently, I can do a similar thing in tt where I assign colors to feeds. On the other hand, what if a user wants to control what symbol should be displayed, similar to the feed’s nick? Hmm. But still, my terminal font doesn’t even render most of emojis. So, Unicode boxes everywhere. This makes me think it should actually be a only client feature.

i’ve been a ham since i was a kid, but i haven’t been too active lately. i’ve seen some interesting signed packet radio schemes, but nothing I’ve taken a close look at. i’ve been doing a bunch of research into mesh networking protocols over the years and now that i’m approaching something worth writing i may have to get back into the hardware side of things

@movq@www.uninformativ.de How hard would it be to implement something like (#<2024-10-25T17:15:50Z https://www.uninformativ.de/twtxt.txt>)in jenny as a replacement for (#twthash) and have it not care about if is http(s) or a g-protocol?

Simplified twtxt - I want to suggest some dogmas or commandments for twtxt, from where we can work our way back to how to implement different feature like replies/treads:

1. It’s a text file, so you must be able to write it by hand (ie. no app logic) and read by eye. If you edit a post you change the content not the timestamp. Otherwise it will be considered a new post.

2. The order of lines in a twtxt.txt must not hold any significant. The file is a container and each line an atomic piece of information. You should be able to run sort on a twtxt.txt and it should still work.

3. Transport protocol should not matter, as long as the file served is the same. Http and https are preferred, so it is suggested that feed served via Gopher or Gemini also provide http(s).

4. Do we need more commandments?

zmq seems like an interesting tool for building task queues and other types of messaging apps. the other option i’m looking at is rabbitmq which has some interesting features like mqtt bridges and federation, but as a result involves a broker. i would like to eventually have all of the ships systems (or at least on the inter-system boundary) communicate over a brokerless messaging protocol. off the shelf env devices and trackers all communicate over an mqtt bridge so some brokering is probably unavoidable without getting into fully custom tech, but that’ll blow the budget.

@bender@twtxt.net I believe it is Unix-Unix Copy Protocol. Not Unix Copy-Copy Protocol.

if twtxt 2 is dropping gemini support, i will probably move on and spend more time on my gemini social zine protocol instead. i think the direction of the protocol is probably fine, but for me web is a tier 2 publishing channel. if the choice is between gemini and http i’m always going to pick gemini. its been a fun ride, but i guess this is where i get off.

@anth@a.9srv.net you wrote:

“Edits and Deletions should go; see also Section 6. This is probably the worst example of this document pushing a text document to do more protocol-like things.”

Edit and deletions are precisely what brought us here. Currently, if one replies to a twtxt, and the original gets later edited, it breaks replies, and potentially drastically changes context.

@prologic@twtxt.net Thanks for writing that up!

I hope it can remain a living document (or sequence of draft revisions) for a good long time while we figure out how this stuff works in practice.

I am not sure how I feel about all this being done at once, vs. letting conventions arise.

For example, even today I could reply to twt abc1234 with “(#abc1234) Edit: …” and I think all you humans would understand it as an edit to (#abc1234). Maybe eventually it would become a common enough convention that clients would start to support it explicitly.

Similarly we could just start using 11-digit hashes. We should iron out whether it’s sha256 or whatever but there’s no need get all the other stuff right at the same time.

I have similar thoughts about how some users could try out location-based replies in a backward-compatible way (append the replyto: stuff after the legacy (#hash) style).

However I recognize that I’m not the one implementing this stuff, and it’s less work to just have everything determined up front.

Misc comments (I haven’t read the whole thing):

• Did you mean to make hashes hexadecimal? You lose 11 bits that way compared to base32. I’d suggest gaining 11 bits with base64 instead.

• “Clients MUST preserve the original hash” — do you mean they MUST preserve the original twt?

• Thanks for phrasing the bit about deletions so neutrally.

• I don’t like the MUST in “Clients MUST follow the chain of reply-to references…”. If someone writes a client as a 40-line shell script that requires the user to piece together the threading themselves, IMO we shouldn’t declare the client non-conforming just because they didn’t get to all the bells and whistles.

• Similarly I don’t like the MUST for user agents. For one thing, you might want to fetch a feed without revealing your identty. Also, it raises the bar for a minimal implementation (I’m again thinking again of the 40-line shell script).

• For “who follows” lists: why must the long, random tokens be only valid for a limited time? Do you have a scenario in mind where they could leak?

• Why can’t feeds be served over HTTP/1.0? Again, thinking about simple software. I recently tried implementing HTTP/1.1 and it wasn’t too bad, but 1.0 would have been slightly simpler.

• Why get into the nitty-gritty about caching headers? This seems like generic advice for HTTP servers and clients.

• I’m a little sad about other protocols being not recommended.

• I don’t know how I feel about including markdown. I don’t mind too much that yarn users emit twts full of markdown, but I’m more of a plain text kind of person. Also it adds to the length. I wonder if putting a separate document would make more sense; that would also help with the length.

I’m still more in favor of (replyto:…). It’s easier to implement and the whole edits-breaking-threads thing resolves itself in a “natural” way without the need to add stuff to the protocol.

I’d love to try this out in practice to see how well it performs. 🤔 It’s all very theoretical at the moment.

More:

Subject: The [tag URI scheme](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tag_URI_scheme) looks interesting. I like that it human read- and writable. And since we already got the timestamp in the twtxt.txt it would be
        somewhat trivial to parse. But there are still the issue with what the name/id should be... Maybe it doesn't have to bee that stick? Instead of using `tag:` as the prefix/protocol, it would more it clear
        what we are talking about by using `in-reply-to:` (https://indieweb.org/in-reply-to) or `replyto:` similar to `mailto:` 1. `(reply:sorenpeter@darch.dk,2024-09-15T12:06:27Z)' 2.
        `(in-reply-to:darch.dk/twtxt.txt,2024-09-15T12:06:27Z)' 2. `(replyto:http://darch.dk/twtxt.txt,2024-09-15T12:06:27Z)' I know it's longer that 7-11 characters, but it's self-explaining when looking at the
        twtxt.txt in the raw, and the cases above can all be caught with this regex: `\([\w-]*reply[\w-]*\:` Is this something that would work?

Subject: The [tag URI scheme](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tag_URI_scheme) looks interesting. I like that it human read- and writable. And since we already got the timestamp in the twtxt.txt it would be
        somewhat trivial to parse. But there are still the issue with what the name/id should be... Maybe it doesn't have to bee that stick? Instead of using `tag:` as the prefix/protocol, it would more it clear
        what we are talking about by using `in-reply-to:` (https://indieweb.org/in-reply-to) or `replyto:` similar to `mailto:` 1. `(reply:sorenpeter@darch.dk,2024-09-15T12:06:27Z)` 2.
        `(in-reply-to:darch.dk/twtxt.txt,2024-09-15T12:06:27Z)` 3. `(replyto:http://darch.dk/twtxt.txt,2024-09-15T12:06:27Z)` I know it's longer that 7-11 characters, but it's self-explaining when looking at the
        twtxt.txt in the raw, and the cases above can all be caught with this regex: `\([\w-]*reply[\w-]*\:` Is this something that would work?

Notice the difference? Soren edited, and broke everything.

The tag URI scheme looks interesting. I like that it human read- and writable. And since we already got the timestamp in the twtxt.txt it would be somewhat trivial to parse. But there are still the issue with what the name/id should be… Maybe it doesn’t have to bee that stick?

Instead of using tag: as the prefix/protocol, it would more it clear what we are talking about by using in-reply-to: (https://indieweb.org/in-reply-to) or replyto: similar to mailto:

1. (reply:sorenpeter@darch.dk,2024-09-15T12:06:27Z)
   
2. (in-reply-to:darch.dk/twtxt.txt,2024-09-15T12:06:27Z)
   
3. (replyto:http://darch.dk/twtxt.txt,2024-09-15T12:06:27Z)
   

I know it’s longer that 7-11 characters, but it’s self-explaining when looking at the twtxt.txt in the raw, and the cases above can all be caught with this regex: \([\w-]*reply[\w-]*\:

Is this something that would work?

you can just have a web address.. i added mine.. though i think they have changed up the protocol so my key doesn’t seem to work anymore. https://key.sour.is/id/me@sour.is

I was not suggesting to that everyone need to setup a working webfinger endpoint, but that we take the format of nick+(sub)domain as base for generating the hashed together with the message date and content.

If we omit the protocol prefix from the way we do things now will that not solve most of the problems? In the case of gemini://gemini.ctrl-c.club/~nristen/twtxt.txt they also have a working twtxt.txt at https://ctrl-c.club/~nristen/twtxt.txt … damn I just notice the gemini. subdomain.

Okay what about defining a prefers protocol as part of the hash schema? so 1: https , 2: http 3: gemini 4: gopher ?

@xuu@txt.sour.is Thanks for the link. I found a pdf on one of the authors’ home pages: https://ahmadhassandebugs.github.io/assets/pdf/quic_www24.pdf . I wonder how the protocol was evaluated closer to the time it became a standard, and whether anything has changed. I wonder if network speeds have grown faster than CPU speeds since then. The paper says the performance is around the same below around 600 Mbps.

To be fair, I don’t think QUIC was ever expected to be faster for transferring a single stream of data. I think QUIC is supposed to reduce the impact of a dropped packet by making sure it only affects the stream it’s part of. I imagine QUIC still has that advantage, and this paper is showing the other side of a tradeoff.

So this is a great thread. I have been thinking about this too.. and what if we are coming at it from the wrong direction? Identity being tied to a given URL has always been a pain point. If i get a new URL its almost as if i have a new identity because not only am I serving at a new location but all my previous communications are broken because the hashes are all wrong.

What if instead we used this idea of signatures to thread the URLs together into one identity? We keep the URL to Hash in place. Changing that now is basically a no go. But we can create a signature chain that can link identities together. So if i move to a new URL i update the chain hosted by my primary identity to include the new URL. If i have an archived feed that the old URL is now dead, we can point to where it is now hosted and use the current convention of hashing based on the first url:

The signature chain can also be used to rotate to new keys over time. Just sign in a new key or revoke an old one. The prior signatures remain valid within the scope of time the signatures were made and the keys were active.

The signature file can be hosted anywhere as long as it can be fetched by a reasonable protocol. So say we could use a webfinger that directs to the signature file? you have an identity like frank@beans.co that will discover a feed at some URL and a signature chain at another URL. Maybe even include the most recent signing key?

From there the client can auto discover old feeds to link them together into one complete timeline. And the signatures can validate that its all correct.

I like the idea of maybe putting the chain in the feed preamble and keeping the single self contained file.. but wonder if that would cause lots of clutter? The signature chain would be something like a log with what is changing (new key, revoke, add url) and a signature of the change + the previous signature.

# chain: ADDKEY kex14zwrx68cfkg28kjdstvcw4pslazwtgyeueqlg6z7y3f85h29crjsgfmu0w 
# sig: BEGIN SALTPACK SIGNED MESSAGE. ... 
# chain: ADDURL https://txt.sour.is/user/xuu
# sig: BEGIN SALTPACK SIGNED MESSAGE. ...
# chain: REVKEY kex14zwrx68cfkg28kjdstvcw4pslazwtgyeueqlg6z7y3f85h29crjsgfmu0w
# sig: ...

re: reticulum i might just make my own internet replacement protocol if i keep finding out that the extant ones have yellow snake flag people attached to them

HTTP/2 differs from 1.x by becoming a binary protocol, it also multiplexes multiple channels over the same connection and has the ability to prefetch related content to the browser to lower the perceived latency.

HTTP/3 moves the binary protocol from HTTP/2 over to QUIC which is based on UDP instead of TCP. This makes it better suited to mobile or unstable networks where handling of transmission errors can be handled at a higher level.

I suspect that people who came to Gemini from Gopher are more satisfied with the protocol than people who came to Gemini from HTTP.