#asciilifeform | 2022-07-13

11:51

asciilifeform: selfchain having the locking thing makes me think how much does it make sense if you still gotta trust the choke-point peer(s) between you and some semi-rando (l2). and how big biz is there with a semi-rando anyway

11:51

dulapbot

Logged on 2022-01-26 18:48:29 asciilifeform: thimbronion: current notion, summarized: we bite off 64byte from payload, and get 2 new fields, call'em 'unlock' and 'lock'. lock == h256(errything else in msg, incl. 'unlock', and unrevealed 32byte turd 'S'.); unlock = 'S' from yer previous msg.

11:51

cgra

otoh, the locking idea would make selfchains reliably distinguishable (assuming proper 'S-turd' entropy). instead, would somekinda chain claiming convention, where you send a standard message with a random string in it, similarly guarantee distinguishable selfchains?

11:55

11:51	cgra	asciilifeform: selfchain having the locking thing makes me think how much does it make sense if you still gotta trust the choke-point peer(s) between you and some semi-rando (l2). and how big biz is there with a semi-rando anyway
11:51	dulapbot	Logged on 2022-01-26 18:48:29 asciilifeform: thimbronion: current notion, summarized: we bite off 64byte from payload, and get 2 new fields, call'em 'unlock' and 'lock'. lock == h256(errything else in msg, incl. 'unlock', and unrevealed 32byte turd 'S'.); unlock = 'S' from yer previous msg.
11:51	cgra	otoh, the locking idea would make selfchains reliably distinguishable (assuming proper 'S-turd' entropy). instead, would somekinda chain claiming convention, where you send a standard message with a random string in it, similarly guarantee distinguishable selfchains?
11:55	asciilifeform	cgra: re 1st q -- see thrd
11:55	dulapbot	Logged on 2022-01-26 19:03:39 asciilifeform: (a) eats shit, as he's perma-distinguishable from the genuine article, except if he can cultivate a 'pet' sub-pestnet where he's the chokepoint b/w them & yours, and he's willing to impersonate $speaker erry day
11:56	asciilifeform	cgra: re 2nd -- the focus, yes, is to ~detect~ handle collisions (accidental or otherwise) and distinguish the chains. not sure what you mean re 'standard message with random...' tho, plz elaborate
11:58	cgra	asciilifeform: i mean, in (leaky) theory, two selfchains are usually distinguishable, even just because the subjects in q wrote different things over time. right?
11:58	asciilifeform	cgra: correct.
11:59	cgra	i'm suggesting the leaky part is plugged by everybody sending a msg nobody else wouldn't and couldn't
11:59	asciilifeform	cgra: problem happens when (for whatever reason) the chain is a) broken b) forked
12:00	cgra	does 'forked' mean specifically branched?
12:00	asciilifeform	correct
12:03	cgra	i was wondering whether there's any demand to automatically resolve either case
12:04	asciilifeform	cgra: how wouldja resolve automatically ?
12:04	cgra	asciilifeform: you pointed out the thread, i could try re-reading if you think there's an obvious explanation
12:05	cgra	or maybe not automatically, but thought that since it's down to trust, wouldn't need anything else but simple mechanics
12:06	asciilifeform	linked thrd gives algo where erry msg carries h(s), s being a random seekrit, and subsequent message by same author reveals s. this aint watertight (it is possible to retro-forge) but afaik closest thing there's gonna be to a pill.
12:06	cgra	asciilifeform: i grasped the algo, not necessarily all implications though
12:07	asciilifeform	if cgra or anyone else can think of a cleaner solution (that does not require rsa) asciilifeform is all ears.
12:07	cgra	the choke-point may still plant his own chain extending msg in place of the original sender
12:07	asciilifeform	aha
12:07	asciilifeform	as described in thrd
12:07	cgra	because received the just-revealed S-turd before others
12:07	asciilifeform	aha
12:07	cgra	so, it's still down to trusting the choke-point, as with without the locking mechanism
12:07	asciilifeform	he has to a) be certain that he's a chokepoint b) keep it up indefinitely, however, or the ruse falls
12:08	asciilifeform	the handling of handle collisions is the part of pest spec asciilifeform is least happy with atm. currently no one gives half a shit because no one has much in the way of an l2 (not even to speak of l3+)
12:09	asciilifeform	but if at some pt there is a pestnet of any serious size, becomes serious headache, and thus far asciilifeform not come up with anyffin but above dirty kludge even in principle to address it.
12:11	cgra	can you imagine a case for l3?
12:11	asciilifeform	easily
12:13	asciilifeform	say, anuther pestnet merges with the current one via peering one or two stations. and then same again.
12:13	asciilifeform	for that matter, there is already an l2, largely consisting of various people's bots
12:14	asciilifeform	(doubtful that erryone can be arsed to l1 peer with erry bot, nor is there much point in doing so)
12:14	cgra	right, that's a clear l2 case
12:15	asciilifeform	and so a human joins the pestnet via, for starters, one peering. nao e.g. asciilifeform's bot is in his l3.
12:15	cgra	(bot l2 case hardly warrants locking mechanism though)
12:16	asciilifeform	summary of what asciilifeform wants. and yes, aware that 'squaring the circle'.
12:16	dulapbot	Logged on 2022-01-24 11:51:33 asciilifeform: what asciilifeform wants is to emulate the 1 desirable aspect of a traditional centralized 'fleanode' : that the 1st user of a handle on a given pestnet can be distinguished from subsequently appearing users.
12:21	asciilifeform	cgra: would like to solve ~general case~ of 'all speakers on pestnet distinguishable at all times' somehow.
12:21	asciilifeform	presently only l1 speakers are guaranteed to be distinguishable (from their l1 peer's pov) as immediate msg is prima facie authentic and wot may not contain two entries with colliding handles.