From: Tim Freeman (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Jul 19 2008 - 08:00:31 MDT
Someone whose attribution was deleted allegedly said:
> Actually, the difficulty I had in mind was the seeming impossibility of
> *proving* one's source code to another.
From: "Stuart Armstrong" <email@example.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:03:40 +0200
>If one SI had the details of how the
>other was historically constructed; if she has access to the full
>memory of the other, the physical makeup, follows her subroutines, and
>is convinced that the source code is robust against being overthrown
>by a secret command of the type above, then trust may be possible.
Entity A could prove to entity B that it has source code S by
consenting to be replaced by a new entity A' that was constructed by a
manufacturing process jointly monitored by A and B. During this
process, both A and B observe that A' is constructed to run source
code S. After A' is constructed, A shuts down and gives all of its
resources to A'.
-- Tim Freeman http://www.fungible.com firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jun 18 2013 - 04:01:01 MDT