I also read your posts, I would certainly not like to miss out on anything.
Dificulty beeing to persuade anyone I know real life to use tiddlywiki.
Birthe
Den tirsdag den 19. december 2017 kl. 15.35.42 UTC+1 skrev Mat:
>
> Well, those who actually ask are clearly the ones who are interested.
Jed Carty wrote:
>
> Is that why people never seem to show much interest in using what I make?
> Like multi-user wikis and twederation and other things that have been
> requested, because I say 'experiment'?
>
IMO... or I shoud say IMGuess, the first reason for why "so few users show
interest
Jed,
I agree with your position here, even cynicism. What is unusual about
block-chain is it is an algorithm who people talk about. Its entered the
common parlance but almost 99% of people who use its name have very little
understanding of most elements of the algorithm, thus a lot of talk
You have eloquently and precisely laid out my question :)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"TiddlyWiki" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this
Datestamped title vs not
I think I understand Ste's question and I think it could be solved: The
request is to have as simple titles as possible. When a date is baked into
the title, it is not simple anymore. Also, if it was a non-shared tiddler
first and you then publish it, it changes title
I don't understand your question.
In TW, all tiddlers must have a unique title. Thus, in a federation, all
tiddlers must have a unique (datestamped) title. It breaks a fundamental
principle of database design, but there it is.
Makr
On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 11:20:14 AM UTC-8, Ste Wilson
To return to the original post, as was just pointed out to me, git commit
histories are blockchains from before blockchains were named that. So
tiddlywiki was using blockchain-related technologies from the start.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Ahhh. Back to the unique name title field /caption field goodness :)
Would it be possible to just create a date stamped field {{title}} in shared
tiddlers?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"TiddlyWiki" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop
Ciao Mark S.
So long as its procedurally clear its doable and I'm sure tolerable. At lot
of bottlenecks in TW arise because its not brilliant at contextual help
systems that let you know what is going on.
- J
Mark S. wrote:
>
> GPG in TW would require the user to add a key to their TW's
I'll be grabbing your multi user stuff next year... A new member of staff so I
suppose I should share...
:D
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"TiddlyWiki" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to
You likely use encryption in your browser every day without even thinking
about it. Google groups, for instance, is in lock mode.
GPG in TW would require the user to add a key to their TW's store whenever
they wanted to allow the posts of some given author. It could probably be
done in just a
Is that why people never seem to show much interest in using what I make?
Like multi-user wikis and twederation and other things that have been
requested, because I say 'experiment'? I am not sure why I find that so
funny. I have just given up on answering questions about sharing tiddlers
I returned to twederation the other day and put it on my testing stuff tiddly
spot just because I'd asked about it recently and thought I'd give it a go. It
was a fairly painless process. I like that others can comment, that I select
what gets shared and who I get things off.
I don't like that
On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 7:16:36 PM UTC+1, @TiddlyTweeter wrote:
>
>
> I am familiar with PGP. I'm not sure how many other TW users are. Whatever
> the system it needs be as automated as possible otherwise it could confuse
> a stupid person.
>
I think it might be fairly simple, if the
Ciao Jed
I do not use it because to use it as I'd need to SEE the benefit.
Maybe its a catch 22.
TBH I always thought TWederation was your and Mat's EXPERIMENT, not a
finished product.
Since I am not very savvy I was waiting till I saw something that demands I
get into it because of its
Thanks Mark S. TWEDERATION needs signing so that you don't get crap or
threats arriving? Right?
I am familiar with PGP. I'm not sure how many other TW users are. Whatever
the system it needs be as automated as possible otherwise it could confuse
a stupid person.
J, x
On Monday, 18 December
Hi Mat,
I have no actual clue, but for now all I can see a term that is hyped to
promote bitcoin among the IT savvy.
Not being convinced that bitcoin solves any of the problems one might think
it's (t)here to solve,
you can imagine how that reflects back on the "blockchain" enthusiasm for
me.
Do people actually use twederation? I haven't heard anything about people
using it in a long time. Some of the other projects I am working on can be
used for a node-based version of twederation that should eventually make it
simple to have cryptographically signed tiddlers.
--
You received
It's needed for Twederation to prevent injection of spoofed spam.
I will add that someone will object that in Twederation there is no danger
because you are *pulling* all tiddlers. But in reality, in a shared
environment involving more than say 10 users, you do not want to have to
check and
>
> What is so difficult about Beaker Browser?
>
Well, could it be made to appear like a "normal app" that people install
e.g on their phones? We do know they cannot use a BB based TW in their
normal browsers.
<:-)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 4:52:35 PM UTC+1, @TiddlyTweeter wrote:
>
> I don't think Beaker Browser makes ANY sense for TW unless you want it to
> become even more difficult to use that it is already.
>
>
What is so difficult about Beaker Browser? IMHO the easiest "use case" is
the
Ciao Jed
I think you so far into that world that you are so far from mine on this
issue (not others, I think you great! I learned much from you.) you are in
outer space on this.
Beaker browser is beta software that would let us create a distributed
> federated network
>
Absolutely. And go
Saying that beaker browser is too complex in a conversation where adding a
novel implementation of a blockchain is being discussed is a bit odd.
Beaker browser is beta software that would let us create a distributed
federated network, blockchains are a vague and poorly defined technology.
More
In that article there isn't anything that actually is helped by the
blockchain part of what they are talking about with the possible exception
of monetisation, but the monetisation schemes currently in place in
blockchains seem to just devolve into rent-seeking, so I don't want to
support
I don't think Beaker Browser makes ANY sense for TW unless you want it to
become even more difficult to use that it is already.
:-)
A programmers dream too far.
Just IMO.
Jed Carty wrote:
>
> Using beaker browser makes sense for tiddlywiki, but I don't know what
> problem we would solve with
Using beaker browser makes sense for tiddlywiki, but I don't know what
problem we would solve with a blockchain.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"TiddlyWiki" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to
It sounds more like you want PGP/GPG style digital signing, which would
have less overhead than bitcoin.
After you've created a tiddler, you could click on an icon to sign it which
would put a hash in a field, perhaps "signature".
In the context of something like Twederation, when TW's are
On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 3:08:31 PM UTC+1, Dragon Cotterill wrote:
>
> No, blockchain is not suitable for TW.
>
Yes and No ...
The concepts and mechanisms of blockchains are definitely intersting, even
in a TW context.
... I'm intentionally using the plurals here. There are many
On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 3:08:31 PM UTC+1, Dragon Cotterill wrote:
>
> Blockchain is a solution desperately looking to solve problems.
>
> OK, the idea of the blockchain is sound. It ensure that changes based on
> previous data is valid. There are two major drawbacks, one in the
>
Dragon Cotterill wrote:
> Firstly the big problem is the need for continuous calculations. This eats
> huge amounts of electricity just to be able to validate the transactions.
>
Absolutely correct.
Amongst the biggest benefactors of blockchain for the money systems have
been "server farms."
Blockchain is a solution desperately looking to solve problems.
OK, the idea of the blockchain is sound. It ensure that changes based on
previous data is valid. There are two major drawbacks, one in the
blockchain itself, and the second applicable to TW.
Firstly the big problem is the need for
31 matches
Mail list logo
