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 8–Nov 15 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/15/2026, 12:45:45 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

29 sources
You can't reuse matrix IDs (yet), as they are the unique key for your message history - it's like email; if you reuse an email address you'll start getting email intended for the original user. We're looking at fixing this in future via https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/blob/rav/proposal/r.... Meanwhile, if you want echelon as a username, go register a domain name, run a matrix server on it, and you can have @echelon:echelon.xyz or wherever. Try not to get sued by five eyes though ;P
In Slack have blocked using the website on mobile
Thanks for answering. > The specification as-written is really, really bad We get a pretty wide range of feedback on the spec fwiw: some people seem to really like it. Others say that it’s “really, really bad” which doesn’t exactly give us much to go on... > Synapse is kind of... and Dendrite is stalled We have no choice but improve Synapse currently, and while it is still quite a resource hog it’s improved by at least 3-5x over the last year. Dendrite instead has become more of an R&D project for future homeserver shapes, but it’s not entirely stalled. > The matrix.org server causes de-facto centralisation The server has been less than 50% of the visible network for several years now - and ironically the datacenter perf issues (unrelated to Synapse) we had over the last few months have shifted that balance further - it’s about 35% and dr
Read the rest
opping. Ideally we will turn it off entirely once we have decentralised accounts. > lack of e2ee by default is iffy Our main project right now is to fix this. Cross-signing is mid flight; E2E search is done; Pantalaimon (E2E compat for dumb clients) is done; remaining key distribution bugs are in flight. We’re aiming to turn it in by default in Jan. > “I couldn’t figure out how the state resolution works” State resolution is the main technical novelty in Matrix, and yeah - it’s hard, much like git’s merge resolution is not exactly easy either. Unfortunately it comes with the territory; if you want to have consistent room state while replicating them over a byzantine network of servers to stop hijacks and other abuse, you have a relatively hard problem to solve. We got it wrong the first time; the current version gets it right (as far as we know). The spec (which is deliberately formal and terse) is https://matrix.org/docs/spec/rooms/v2 However, there are supporting documents linked from the spec to help clarify: the original spec proposal at https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/blob/erikj/state_re... and the guide at https://matrix.uhoreg.ca/stateres/reloaded.html etc Ironically I think that state res is one of the best documented and understood bits of Matrix now (which is just as well, given how important it is).
In Twitter funding a team to develop an open standard for social media
For what it’s worth, Matrix is trying to be the protocol that Jack describes here - complete with relative reputation systems (https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/blob/msc2313/propos...) and an open standard (https://matrix.org/docs/spec) and even an open governance process and foundation (https://matrix.org/foundation) - and with work progressing towards fully decentralised p2p matrix. Rather than building a new initiative from the ground up, we hope there’s some opportunity to join forces on this.
In Twitter funding a team to develop an open standard for social media
For what it’s worth, Matrix is trying to be the protocol that Jack describes here - complete with relative reputation systems (https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/blob/msc2313/propos...) and an open standard (https://matrix.org/docs/spec) and even an open governance process and foundation (https://matrix.org/foundation) - and with work progressing towards fully decentralised p2p matrix. Rather than building a new initiative from the ground up, we hope there’s some opportunity to join forces on this.
In Twitter funding a team to develop an open standard for social media
So, firstly - huge thanks for taking the time to list the problems :) I'm the project lead for Matrix & Riot hence my interest. Totally agreed that the lack of cross-signing for key verification is our single biggest problem. It turns out that this is not an easy problem to solve, but after a few rethinks we finally have a design (https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/pull/1756) and an implementation (https://scitech.video/videos/watch/d1ef04a8-397a-4570-a9a9-c...) which works. The only bit that remains is wiring it into the Riot's UI itself, which we started a few weeks ago and is looking promising. The TL;DR is that it optimises the number of verifications to the absolute bare minimum. You verify your new device once when you log into it (a bit like WhatsApp), and then everyone else will transitively trust the new device. In term
Read the rest
s of the unreliability of the matrix.org server: we added encrypted key backup about a year ago to solve the whole "if you get logged out you lose your keys" problem, but agreed it used to be a massive problem. And yes, the matrix.org security breach was a nightmare - apologies. For the i18n bug: if the request to load the i18n file for your language fails for whatever reason, you get that ugly error - it's similar to getting an ugly page if the CSS didn't load. We can make the i18n req retry, though - i just filed https://github.com/vector-im/riot-web/issues/10965 for this. In terms of the number of bugs - yes, we have 3775 open, and 5871 closed. This is because we deliberately try to track each and every possible suggestion & feature request & bug of every severity in the issue tacker; trying to use it as the main knowledge store for the project. I wouldn't judge the quality of a project by the number of bugs - it's like judging the quality of a book by the number of pages. It doesn't tell you much beyond how big a book it is. Search should work, but delegates straight through to postgres's FTS engine. We need to tune it better, for sure. > So basically, it's a mess right now Hopefully key verification will fix the biggest issue here. Thanks for persevering with it in the interim.
In We Need a PBS for Social Media
it doesn't provide much extra privacy, given the rainbow tables are trivial to compute, as you say, which is why we haven't prioritised this historically. moxie wrote well about this at https://signal.org/blog/contact-discovery/. however, it does provide some defence-in-depth against Identity Server inspecting the email & phone number details in plaintext, so we'll go sort it out as per https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/issues/2130
In Notes on privacy and data collection of Matrix.org
So email addresses are used for two purposes in Matrix: "administrative contact" for an account (for password reset), as per https://matrix.org/docs/spec/client_server/r0.5.0#adding-acc..., and for discovering users' mxids by email address (as per https://matrix.org/docs/spec/identity_service/r0.2.0#post-ma...). At registration, if you specify an email address, Riot does sets it both for password reset and for mxid discovery. You (and the OP) are right that this should be clearer - it boils down to the fact that we need to add UI to remind the user that they're using an identity server (with given terms of use) and to confirm this is what they want. We could also split it into separate actions (one to set it for password reset, and one to use it for discovery), and indeed before Riot this is how it used to be (there was a checkbox in Mat
Read the rest
rix Console at registration to let the user choose whether to bind their email). This got lost in Riot because of concerns that it made the registration UX too noisy and complicated (especially with custom HS & IS URLs flying around the place), so it currently binds their email by default. I've just filed https://github.com/vector-im/riot-web/issues/10054 to track addressing this. You said "making this e-mail address public" in your question - it's worth noting that binding a 3PID does not publish it in a public list; instead, it means it can be used as a key to look up your MXID for users who already know your email address. In terms of the other valid points the analysis raises, I've also filed a bug to track hashing contact details when doing lookups (https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/issues/2130, although i could have sworn we had one already). The other two issues (Riot/Web talking to Scalar too much, and the desire to remove notary servers entirely) already have bugs - https://github.com/vector-im/riot-web/issues/5846 and https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/issues/1228 respectively).
In Notes on privacy and data collection of Matrix.org
Not really. MSC1228 is specifically about decoupling all the IDs in Matrix from DNS, switching to strictly key-based IDs - https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/issues/1228 is the MSC. P2P Matrix could perhaps be layered on top of this, using some kind of overlay to route the traffic around such that you no longer have to trust any server. We have some ideas around this, but need to write up them up as an MSC. https://matrix.org/blog/2019/03/12/breaking-the-100-bps-barr... has some thoughts on what the transport could look like for this.
In Matrix 1.0 and the Matrix.org Foundation
We don’t have any plans for formal decentralised governance at this time; it’s hard enough making rapid progress with an open standard with ~12 people helping steer it without opening it up to the whole world to bikeshed. Instead, we clearly define the terms under which new folks can join and leave the spec core team, code core team and Guardians in https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/blob/matthew/msc177... and more formally in https://matrix.org/media/2019-06-10%20-%20Matrix.org%20Found.... So this defines how the wider community can get involved at the top level; and in turn, anyone is welcome and encouraged to submit patches (for implementation) and proposals (for spec) - thus providing a relatively decentralised end result. Our emphasis is more on open governance than decentralised governance for the sake of it. That said, if Ara
Read the rest
gon or some similar project came along and convinced us of a better governance model, we’d of course consider it :)
In Matrix 1.0 and the Matrix.org Foundation
I'm not aware of a bug in how synapse signs events, and whilst it's possible there's a bug there, we can't fix stuff which we're unaware of which hasn't been disclosed. (Max would probably claim he can't disclose because he's been banned from our Github for consistently being obstructive; unfortunately this is a case in point). Edit: he might be talking about https://github.com/matrix-org/synapse/issues/4787? Except that was fixed a month ago... In terms of "don't blindly believe what a for-profit is saying, especially one that is in full control of the said protocol", I'd agree, were it true. However: * These days the protocol is controlled entirely by the non-profit Matrix Foundation. * The majority (3 out of 5) of the Foundation's directors have zero affiliation to New Vector, the company that the core Matrix set up to try to keep the
Read the rest
project funded. * The governance of the foundation & protocol is entirely open, as per https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/blob/matthew/msc177... * We're announcing the final board once formally appointed; due in the next few weeks. Meanwhile, it's also true to say that you shouldn't believe the skewed perspective of a disgruntled ex-community member with a chip on their shoulder, who is trying to plug their hostile fork: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19473694.
In Matrix 1.0 – Are We Ready Yet?

Showing the 15 most recent of 29 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.