HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
matrix-org
matrix-spec-proposals
Python2015–2026
matrix-org / matrix-spec-proposals

matrix-spec-proposals

Proposals for changes to the matrix specification

57Distinct people
182Mentions
4Explicit recommenders
1.3KGitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

Proposals for changes to the matrix specification

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use was verified in the last source check.

What people are saying

Yup. One of the biggest learnings of E2EE in Matrix is that the complexity is 95% user experience. However, in Element X, we've been determined to get it right - although there…

Arathorn used a recommendation phrase. 4 indexed comments match. This is a phrase match, not a verdict.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

Mentioned in the same Hacker News threads. That is not proof they are substitutes.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 3:56:07 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by year182 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2015-02-05 16:06:38 UTC to 2026-09-14 14:52:42 UTC.

010203040502015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments20152016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 4 mentions; 0 submissions, 4 comments2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 0 submissions, 3 comments2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 29 mentions; 0 submissions, 29 comments2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 27 mentions; 0 submissions, 27 comments20202021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 49 mentions; 2 submissions, 47 comments2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 28 mentions; 1 submissions, 27 comments2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 14 mentions; 0 submissions, 14 comments2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 10 mentions; 0 submissions, 10 comments2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 11 mentions; 0 submissions, 11 comments2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2027-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 0 submissions, 3 comments. Incomplete calendar period.2026*

* An incomplete calendar period is marked with an outlined bar. Its count is not directly comparable with a full period.

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
20152015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC202
20162016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC404
20172017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC303
20182018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC202
20192019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC29029
20202020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC27027
20212021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC49247
20222022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC28127
20232023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC14014
20242024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC10010
20252025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC11011
2026 (partial)2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2027-01-01 00:00:00 UTC303

From the project README

An excerpt from the repository, fetched Nov 12, 2026.

Read the project’s introduction
Matrix Specification Proposals This repository contains proposals for changes to the Matrix Protocol, aka "Matrix Spec Changes" (MSCs). The proposals directory contains MSCs which have been accepted. See below for instructions for creating new proposals. See also https://spec.matrix.org/proposals/ for more information on the MSC process, in particular https://spec.matrix.org/proposals/#process. The source of the Matrix specification itself is maintained at https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec. The Matrix Spec Process An MSC is meant to be a technical document that unambiguously describes a change to the Matrix Spec, while also justifying why the change should be made. The document is used both to judge whether the change should be made as described and by developers to actually implement the changes. This is why it's important for an MSC to be fully fleshed out in technical detail, as once merged it's immediately part of the formal spec (even though it still needs to be transcribed into the actual spec itself). What changes need to follow this process? In most cases a change to the Matrix protocol will require an MSC. Changes that would not require an MSC are typically small and uncontentious, or are simply clarifications to the spec. Fixing typos in the spec do not require an MSC. In most cases, removing ambiguities do not either. The exception may be if implementations in the ecosystem have differing views on clarifying the ambiguity. In that case, an MSC is typically the best place to reach consensus. Ultimately, the Spec Core Team have the final say on this, but generally if the change would require updates to a non-insignificant portion of the Matrix implementation ecosystem or would be met with contention, an MSC is the best route to take. You can also ask in the Matrix Spec or Office of the Spec Core Team Matrix rooms for clarification. Summary of the process The MSC process consists of three basic steps: Write up the proposal in a markdown document. (There's a proposal template, but don't feel bound by it.) Submit it as a Pull Request to this repo, marking it as a draft until it's ready for wider review. Seek review from the community. Once people are generally happy with it, ask the Spec Core Team to look at it in the Office of the SCT Matrix room. When the SCT are happy with the proposal, and after a successful voting process, your pull request is merged and the MSC is now officially accepted as part of the Matrix Spec and can be used 🎉 For simple changes this is really all you need to know. For larger or more controversial changes, getting an MSC merged can take more time and effort, but the overall process remains the same. Below is various guidance to try and help make the experience smoother. Guidance on the process 1. Writing the proposal Come up with an idea. The idea can be for anything, but the solution (MSC) needs to benefit the Matrix ecosystem rather than yourself (or your company) specifically. Sometimes this means that the solution needs to be more generic than the specific itch that you are trying to scratch. Remember that an MSC is a formal technical document which will be used by others in the wider community to judge if the proposal should be accepted and to actually implement the changes in clients and servers. This means that for an MSC to be accepted it should include justifications and describe the technical changes unambiguously, including specifying what happens in any and all edge cases. There's a proposal template under docs/0000-proposal.md, but you don't necessarily need to use it. Covering the same major points is fine. Note: At this stage, you won't have an MSC number, so feel free to use 0000, XXXX, or whatever other placeholder you feel comfortable with. Some tips for MSC writing: Please wrap your lines to 120 characters maximum. This allows readers to review your markdown without needing to horizontally scroll back and forth. Many markdown text editors have this feature. If you are referencing an existing endpoint in the spec, or another MSC, it is very helpful to add a link to them so the reader does not need to search themselves. Examples: "This MSC proposals an alternative to MSC3030." "A new field will be added to the response body of /_matrix/client/v3/sync". Note: it is best to link to the latest stable version of the spec (e.g. /v1.3, not /latest) - failing that, /unstable if the change is not yet in a released spec version. GitHub supports rendering fancy diagrams from text with very little effort using Mermaid. See this guide for more information. Take a look at the MSC Checklist. When it comes time for the Spec Core Team to review your MSC for acceptance, they'll use the items on this checklist as a guide. 2. Submitting a Pull Request Open a Pull Request to add your proposal document to the proposals directory. Note that this will require a GitHub account. Mark your Pull Request as a draft for now. The MSC number is the number of the pull request that is automatically assigned by GitHub. Go back through and edit the document accordingly. Don't forget the file name itself! Edit the pull request title to fit the format "MSC1234: Your proposal title". Once your proposal is correctly formatted and ready for review from the wider ecosystem, take your Pull Request out of draft status. The Spec Core Team will notice this and apply various labels/status tracking to your MSC, which will announce it to the wider world. 3. Seeking review Seek review from the Matrix community. Generally this will happen naturally, but if you feel that your proposal is lacking review then ask for people's opinion in the Matrix Spec room on Matrix. Reviews can take many forms, and do not need to be done solely by members of the Spec Core Team. Getting other people who are familiar with the area of Matrix you are proposing changes to is a great first step; especially those who may be implementing these changes in clients and/or homeservers. While
Read the full README on GitHub

What Hacker News says

182 sources
This will be referring to enforcing MSC4311 (https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals/pull/431...) stripped state validation. Synapse announced a 1 year compatibility window to avoid ecosystem fragemtnation: https://github.com/element-hq/synapse/issues/19943. However, due to MSC4311 not better outlining how to handle compatibility, another server implementation chose to enforce the MSC more rapidly, breaking compatibility with everyone who hadn't yet implemented the MSC - including Synapse, which hadn't actually implemented it yet. Speaking as the lead of the Matrix Spec Core Team, we should have handled this better. https://github.com/element-hq/synapse/pull/19723 is the Synapse implementation which is now in the process of landing.
In Registration without a phone number on Signal will use zero-knowledge proofs
/me sighs; Merry Christmas everyone. For what it's worth, we've been working on improving Matrix's metadata footprint this year: MSC4362 (https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals/blob/kay...) got implemented on matrix-js-sdk for encrypting room state (currently behind a labs flag on Element Web: https://github.com/element-hq/element-web/blob/develop/docs/...). Meanwhile more radical proposals like MSC4256 (https://github.com/dklimpel/matrix-spec-proposals/blob/mls-R...) go and remove senders entirely and encrypt room state via MLS. The reason Matrix hasn't prioritised metadata protection earlier is: * If you're particularly concerned about metadata footprint, you can run your own servers in whatever network environment you feel like - you are NOT surrendering metadata to some central or 3rd party server as you would in a centr
Read the rest
alised platform. * We've had to focus on getting decentralised encryption stable, which turns out to be hard enough without also throwing in metadata protection - it's only this year that we've turned that corner. * Unless you're using a mixnet, network traffic gives away a significant amount of metadata anyway. Anyway, yes: Matrix can do better on obfuscating metadata on servers, and we'll continue improving it in 2026. Meanwhile, if anyone's feeling nostalgic you can see a presentation I wrote preempting the challenge of metadata protection back in 2016 (on the day we first turned on E2EE in Matrix, ironically): https://matrix.org/~matthew/2015-06-26%20Matrix%20Jardin%20E.... In some other world perhaps we would have got to this point sooner, but better late than never. EDIT: I can't face going through all the other points in this post, but it's worth noting that some of it is just entirely false - e.g. the hackea claims of "an impressive collection of private data being sent to Matrix central servers, even when you use your own instance", or the fact that media isn't authed (it has been since Jun 2024). Meanwhile the abuse situation has evolved significantly in 2025, with stuff like https://matrix.org/blog/2025/02/building-a-safer-matrix/ and https://matrix.org/blog/2025/12/policyserv as well as hiring up a larger trust & safety team at the Matrix Foundation.
In Why We Abandoned Matrix (2024)
upstreamed into Synapse as of Sept 2024, and the proxy was sunset in Nov 2024: https://matrix.org/blog/2024/11/14/moving-to-native-sliding-... Not that many clients have actually adopted it though, because the MSC is still not 100% finalised - it's currently entering the final review stages at last now over at https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals/pull/418.... Right now Element X uses it (exclusively), and Element Web has experimental support for it; I'm not sure if any others actually use it yet.
In Matrix Conference 2025 Highlights
Mjolnir is designed to apply decentralised public blocklists - i.e. you pick which banlists to apply; there are a bunch published by different people (matrix.org, the matrix 'community moderation effort', etc). Admittedly moderators do share lists (so that if #archlinux bans you, others might pick up the ban), but there's no intrinsic centralisation. https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/blob/msc2313/propos... is how it works fwiw.
In User ban controversy reveals Bluesky’s decentralized aspiration isn’t reality
Matrix's federation already does result in redundancy of the entire chat history; users not on @matrix.org can currently communicate between each other just fine even on :matrix.org rooms despite matrix.org being down. It's entirely just user accounts that are tied to a homeserver currently. There's a proposal to make it possible for clients to fully manage their account identity (https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals/pull/408...) but that doesn't look particularly active.
In Matrix.org service offline: corrupted database
The blog mentions right at the start that it's based on OAuth 2.0/OIDC, similar to how you log in to your Google account in Thunderbird for example. > I always wonder how it will work for someone writing their own client, perhaps a very basic client (or a bot). For interactive clients, it'll be the standard OAuth 2.0 Authorization Code flow[1]. For non-interactive services they say in the proposal[2] that one uses the existing method but they will implement the standard OAuth 2.0 Client Credentials flow[3], which is effectively like a traditional username/password deal, though the "password" is not the account password. [1]: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/entra/identity-platform/v2... [2]: https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals/blob/002... [3]: https://developer.okta.com/docs/concepts/oauth-openid/#clien...
In Matrix.org Will Migrate to MAS
That's .well-known based delegation, which was proposed in MSC1708 in Nov 2017: https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals/blob/old... and merged into the spec in Jan 2019 (prior to Matrix 1.0 in June 2019): https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec/commit/0347e873efc... So yes, fully-baked and part of Matrix since 1.0! Next Gen Auth via OIDC is instead a key part of the (upcoming) Matrix 2.0 spec release - see https://areweoidcyet.com and https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals/pull/386...
In Matrix.org Will Migrate to MAS
It looks like i've done a bad job at explaining this, so i'll try to clarify: Making worker processes go fast has most benefit to enormous deployments, as they won't run out of headroom when running lots of single-core python workers. However, ALL deployment sizes benefit from algorithmic improvements to the protocol and its implementation - which are the cause of smaller servers being slower today. Specifically: * Merge conflict resolution (State resolution) is worse than O(N) complexity with the amount of state to be merged. * Incremental room joins (https://element-hq.github.io/synapse/latest/development/syna...) were never fully finished. * Servers burn lots of time trying to talk to dead servers: https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals/pull/413... * All Matrix traffic currently runs full-mesh - there's no concept of "thin
Read the rest
nodes" or delegating fan-out to a larger server. So, fixing these issues is all going into open source Synapse (and Matrix as a whole) - which should unrecognisably improve performance, whether servers are written in Python or Rust or Elixir or whatever. And the hope is that $ from Synapse Pro funds that work (assuming the gambit is successful). Meanwhile, all features, security work, perf optimisations (apart from scalability work), experimental MSCs etc will continue to land in FOSS Synapse for the forseeable.
In Scaling to users requires Synapse Pro

Showing the 15 most recent of 182 sources. Enable JavaScript to search and browse every indexed mention.

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.