[Hardware] 'success'

[Martin Klingensmith]

Hi John,
I'm sure double-checking has been discussed before?
If you have a log of which work units every user has submitted, and you
check every nth work unit with another user to see if they get the same
"residual", could you faithfully determine at least at some point if the
user was cheating? Even if they try to submit some fake and some real,
they'll probably get caught at some point. It would indeed slow the
process down. I don't know what percentage would have to be double checked
to be statistically valid.
--
Martin K

On Wed, October 18, 2006 11:21 pm, John L. Bass wrote:
>

> Jim,
>
>
> There is SELDOM a good technical solution for a social problem, unless
> there are clear limits on the social side which control negative behaviors
>  with some very strong adversity on failure. Not even life in jail is a
> deterant, or even death, for some individuals, when there is a good
> posibility of fame or riches for cheating the system.
>
> Decision theory and Game Theory are well worth spending some time
> thinking about BEFORE attempting to design a technical solution to a
> social problem.
>
> I was quite serious in responding to your opening the door, assuming
> suggesting practical ideas to solve the problem would be openly
> considered.
>
> The best way to solve this problem is drastically change the rules of the
>  game to remove self interest in defeating the technology. And to have
> firm limits (IE blacklisting) to remove violators from the game for good,
> when a player's primary goal is disruption of the game, as a DoS attack on
> the other players.
>
> The current system doesn't protect the goals of the game you setup. First
>  it blocks participation of the most likely technology to solve the
> current RSA challenge. Second, the solution is flawed, as a few hours in a
> debugger will disassemble, and/or reverse compile your technical solution,
> making it "open source" for a skilled hacker determined to mess with the
> game.
>
> John
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 02:56:12PM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> > > Which is why this list is dead. The proprietary interests block open
> > > access. >
> > Ideas for ways to do away with the crypto most welcome. :)
>
>
> Damn, accidentally deleted your email.
>
>
> there is always the archive.
>
> In any case, I should have been more explicit: what we need are actual
> plans that remove the need for any proprietary code, and then people who
> will put the effort in to make them happen. Some of what you mentioned has
> been talked about (namely a means to positively identify what user is
> submitting a particular work unit), but that's still just the tip of the
> iceberg. --
> Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect            decibel at distributed.net
> _______________________________________________
> Hardware mailing list
> Hardware at lists.distributed.net
> http://lists.distributed.net/mailman/listinfo/hardware
>
>