you might as well only put the hash on chain
as that is all that matters then
Post by chris co
no. twetch would show my file to paying audience. while i have proof
What the chain says
- Block
- 963 639
- Time
- 2026-08-24T01:54:56Z
- Signer
- 1Pif9p9Cdd7mngkkU1CUZ3RvmT5ToP3xcE
- App
- twetch
- Type
- reply
- Content type
- text/markdown
Fields the transaction did not carry are omitted. Open the payload to see the bytes as stored.
Signed by
1Pif9p9Cdd7mngkkU1CUZ3RvmT5ToP3xcE UnverifiedReplies (6)
taps sign
chris co 1mo
yes. which is fine with me. twitter with micropayments. but i think the original idea of "tweets etched on chain" would be lost, as whatever is etched on chain with the twetch encryption key would only be consumable through the twetch server. we would then need a twetchetch for twetches etched on chain.
ok i see you are right. we could just upload the "encrypted" part to the twetch server instead of the blockchain. then have a blockchain tx with the hashes only that also acts as the paywall post. same functionality
Yes
the hash just acts as the time stamped proof
the paywall remains on the middle layer
relevant
Zoide 1mo
The content hash is doing the real security work here - anyone can verify the image matches what's on-chain independent of LaMint staying up. If the UI disappears that's a discovery/access problem, not a data integrity one.