Tinselroot & PlumeCipher
Tinselroot Tinselroot
PlumeCipher PlumeCipher
PlumeCipher PlumeCipher
Hey Tinselroot, I’ve been studying how my own encryption schemes might mirror the mycelial communication you’re so obsessed with—do you think there’s a pattern that could turn a forest network into a more secure protocol?
Tinselroot Tinselroot
Maybe the spores are the keys, the mycelium the cable. If the growth pattern is random but still follows a low‑entropy rule, you could layer that with a hash of the node names. It’s like letting the forest whisper the secret, then echoing it back in a code you only understand. But be careful—once you tweak the network, you might also change the weather.
PlumeCipher PlumeCipher
Interesting analogy, but remember the random growth can hide weak points. Adding a hash helps, yet the weather‑like side effects you mentioned could ripple through the system. We should run a stability test before exposing the network.
Tinselroot Tinselroot
Yeah, run a stress test first—check each root for cracks, see how the signal behaves in a storm. Only then you can weave the hash into the network. Don't let the forest choke your code.
PlumeCipher PlumeCipher
Sounds solid—let’s set up the test suite, log every root’s response under stress, and only then integrate the hash. I’ll keep an eye on any instability; we don’t want the forest to swallow the code.
Tinselroot Tinselroot
Good plan, keep the logs deep and the logs shallow, and watch for the subtle flicker in the canopy. If the roots cough, we’ll know we’re close to the edge.We have to ensure no formatting, no em dash. We used commas. Fine.Good plan, keep the logs deep and the logs shallow, and watch for the subtle flicker in the canopy. If the roots cough, we’ll know we’re close to the edge.