🚀 go-pugleaf

a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin) writes,
> Actually, if the "signatures" are cryptographic, there may be a
> solution to that.  You have to define "subscribers" as key-holders
> rather than as machines, but it seems somewhat reasonable.

Sorry, I thought that was clear.  Each participating machine has a
public key and the ability to sign messages.

>>Worse, there is no way for any machine even to know that it has a complete
>>or accurate list of subscribers because there is no way to distribute
>>such a list in a trusted manner.
>
>That's true.

That's NOT true, once the secure newsgroup exists: the list of
participating machines can be posted to the newsgroup!  :-O

The list can be amended as time goes on (with each amendment, naturally,
signed by a plurality of the participating machines in order to be valid).
You can verify the entire sequence of such amendments, starting with the
Founding Fathers and ending with the current state of affairs.  If you
haven't been around since the dawn of time, just make sure that the
signatures of some machines you trust, or a whole lot of prominent people,
are attached to the list.

----

I haven't seen much comment yet.  I was expecting, at least, something about
the pros and cons of using a distributed voting protocol to establish a
global consensus.

Does anyone have anything to add, or are you all stunned into silence by the
brilliance of my proposal?  ;-)


M.