blog.ratterobert.com

eapl.me (eapl.me)

Human Level 37, Engineer πŸ”§, scientist πŸ”¬ y co-creator of organizations 🌱, living in Mexico 🌎, and working with people across the world πŸ—ΊοΈ y, learning to enjoy life! Texts and links on https://eapl.me

eapl.me (eapl.me)

July 1st. 63 days from now to implement a backward-incompatible change, apparently not open to other ideas like replacing blake with SHA, or discussing implementation challenges for other languages and platforms. Finally just closing #18, #19 and #20 without starting a proper discussion and ignoring a 'micro consensus' feels... not right.

I don't know what to think rather than letting it rest (May will be busy here) and focus on other stuff in the future.

twt-hash-v2.md#implementation-timeline

In reply to: #ceripcq 1 month ago
eapl.me (eapl.me)

another one would be to allow changing public keys over time (as it may be a good practice [0]). A syntax like the following could help to know what public key you used to encrypt the message, and which private key the client should use to decrypt it:

!<nick url> <encrypted_message> <public_key_hash_7_chars>

Also I'd remove support for storing the message as hex, only allowing base64 (more compact, aiming for a minimalistic spec, etc.)

[0] https://www.brandonchecketts.com/archives/its-2023-you-should-be-using-an-ed25519-ssh-key-and-other-current-best-practices

In reply to: #eelvuca 4 months ago
Reply via email