Looking at the source I don't think that's true -- it's using GitHub specific APIs to read/write files. It's not standard git so any remote wouldn't work, and the mechanics are more akin to a key-value store than git really.

Not to say you couldn't add a generic git protocol to this, just that that's not being done here.

> The protocol itself isn’t tied to GitHub and works with any Git remote.

> If GitHub ever decided this wasn’t an acceptable use case, swapping the remote would be trivial.

Nope.

From the README:

"GitHub is the only working write provider right now. GitLab, GitVerse, Gitea, Forgejo, and other git hosts are protocol targets for future adapters. Today they are not finished write adapters."

True, but imagine this use case:

A messenger file with hardcoded settings and a hardcoded PGP key, stored on a USB stick.

You send a message.

Then you physically destroy the USB stick.

The client, the key, and the configuration are gone.

At some point the joke starts looking suspiciously like a dead-drop communication protocol.

How do you like that, FBI?

From the translated readme:

Macaroni Messenger is not a joke. It simply refuses to complicate solutions unnecessarily.

That's why some technical decisions might look like a joke.

Sometimes it really is a joke. But most of the time, it's just the simplest working option.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48487542