(#rqkdcfa) @prologic@twtxt.net Just what @bender@twtxt.net did. :-D If he’d additionally serve the fake message from his yarnd twt endpoint, everybody querying that hash from him (or any other yarnd that synced it in the meantime) would believe, that I didn’t like Australians.
In fact, I really don’t. I love’em! 8-)
We would need to sign each message in a feed, so others could verify that this was actually part of that feed and not made up. But then we end up in the crypto debate for identities again, which I’m not a big fan of. :-)
I just want to highlight, one might get a false sense of message authenticity, if one just briefly looks at the hashes.
#iovmszq
(#rqkdcfa) @prologic@twtxt.net Let me try:
Invent anything you want, say feed A writes message text B at timestamp C. You simply create the hash D for it and reply to precisely that D as subject in your own feed E with your message text F at timestamp G. This gets hashed to H.
Now then, some a client J fetches your feed E. It sees your response from time G with text F where in the subject you reference hash D. Since client J does not know about hash D, it simply asks some peers about it. If it happens to query your yarnd for it, you could happily serve it your invention: “You wanna know about hash D? Oh, that’s easy, feed A wrote B at time C.”
The client J then verifies it and since everthing lines up, it looks legitimate and puts this record in its cache or displays it to the user or whatever. It does not even matter, if the client J follows feed A or not. The message text B at C with hash D could have just deleted or edited in the meantime.
Congrats, you successfully spread rumors. :-D
#zr6spqq