Identification scripts: Difference between revisions

(2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown)

Line 12:

=== Hashes ===

While less common, a randomly generated hash may be used in place of the character's write time. The hashes can be proprietary to the identification script, allowing for validation of the hash.

=== Keys ===

See [https://ourworldoftext.com/sylveon/keys /sylveon/keys].

=== Flaws ===

Line 134:

Line 137:

[ES] Este texto que ves arriba es un Hash usado para evitar la suplantación de identidad. Los usuarios (normalmente anons) han usado las funciones de nota o de javascript para intentar suplantar a alguien. El hash decimal significa que este texto fue escrito por 12345. No se tolerará ningún intento de suplantación de identidad. Este script no se compartirá con nadie, ni ahora ni nunca.

==== HashBrown 2 ====

Uses the Web Crypto API to generate a public key and a private key.

=== Linkwich Greentime ===

Line 151:

Line 156:

and now, we're on 4.1. the message "Written by JanTechPL. | Hash: (INSERT HASH) | This hash is a way to prove my text legitimate, to prevent people from attempts of impersonation." was added.

[[File:Greenwish linktime.png|none|thumb|Counterfeit script a.k.a. Linkwich Greentime from Wish. (March 2nd, 2026)]]

PLEASE READ THIS!

Recently, the “Great Color Ban of 2025/2026” has begun, dropping the amount of colors usable from the whole 24-bit color space to a mere 3.

Even though more colors have appeared, many people are forced to use the closest available color which is identical to some other people's choices. One method to put this lack of identification to a seemingly true end is to sign your text with your name.

But when you do that, there's an extreme chance that an impersonator will come by and turn your messages into something offensive or downright racist.

This is where come in useful: Hashes.

Or any dynamic stamp or signature that can be opened upon seeing text, to be honest.

A hash changes on a per-character basis and there is a very tiny chance that a hash could repeat. Most of the time, hashes are proprietary to the script they're tied to and thus have a low chance of being replicated by people with enough scripting abilities (who go too far just to harass one).

A static note: link is a weak protection.

A timestamp is a medium protection, but works well with most cases.

A hash is a strong protection.

So I went with a HASH. Works well for me.

Any attempts of impersonation are not tolerated and any impersonator will probably realize that what they do is harmful. Don't say they can't figure that out in a long period of time when making an impersonation attempt.

Thank you for reading all this!

____________

by | ___ ___/

| | | |

| | | | [)

| | | | | |

_____| | | | |_

\______| |_|

=== e_g.'s identification script ===