politics etc. (usual top-posting apology)
Thomas Lord
(31 Jan 2006 18:43 UTC)
|
Re: politics etc. (usual top-posting apology)
Alex Shinn
(01 Feb 2006 02:39 UTC)
|
Re: politics etc. (usual top-posting apology)
bear
(01 Feb 2006 03:34 UTC)
|
Re: politics etc. (usual top-posting apology) Alex Shinn (01 Feb 2006 03:57 UTC)
|
Re: politics etc. (usual top-posting apology)
Thomas Lord
(01 Feb 2006 05:44 UTC)
|
Re: politics etc. (usual top-posting apology)
Alex Shinn
(02 Feb 2006 03:01 UTC)
|
Re: politics etc. (usual top-posting apology) Alex Shinn 01 Feb 2006 03:57 UTC
On 2/1/06, bear <xxxxxx@sonic.net> wrote: > > On Wed, 1 Feb 2006, Alex Shinn wrote: > > > I'm claiming that to be secure there must be a unique mapping from > > name to entity, and this has to be _verifiable_ by automated means. > > In terms of Zooko's Triangle, the verification can either be > > decentralized (by making the name itself a signature), or > > human-readable, by establishing a trusted authority which can answer > > "who does this name belong to?" but you can't have both. > > So no anonymous authors of code can exist in a secure system? > I don't actually like that definition. "Secure" means the name is authenticated to belong to some entity. This doesn't include a definition of "entity." The entity could simply be a public key, anonymously uploaded to an authority (or just floated out on the web if using a decentralized system). And I reiterate, this is only about the security of the _name_ itself, not the code. -- Alex