>First, you've *nearly* found ONE INTERNAL SCAM humble agoran bloodhoun...-puppy at your service.
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 9:30 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote: > > I disagree with that Public is explicitly defined. "Public message", > yes. "Public X" in general? > > I don't believe so. "Public challenge" isn't explicitly defined to need > to be a public message, > > just a challenge which is "Public" (which, via your trick, if it works, > could be encrypted). > > So "Public" itself isn't defined in general. > > First, you've *nearly* found ONE INTERNAL SCAM I was hoping to try, but > didn't get around to. > So I'll give it to you. If you look at the possible *responses* to a > Claim of Error, "publish > a revision" and "Initiating an inquiry case"[*] are explicitly public, but > DENY a CLAIM is > *not* explicitly public. (and since the other elements on the list are > *explicitly* public, > the implication is that Denial doesn't need to be public). > > When I published the fake Report the other week, I'd intended to privately > Deny the claim, > putting it secretly back on the self-ratification clock. > > > Anyway,on the "public challenge" side: > > The full phrase is "public challenge via one of the following methods". > So the methods define > what the challenge is. So a public challenge is something that is > "identifying a document" > (likely needs to identify the document publicly) and uses (1) an inquiry > case (CFJ) which has > it's own defined process that starts "by announcement" in R991[*], or (2) > a CoE. BUT... I > notice you're right, there's nothing that explicitly says a CoE must be > public. > > Though if you CFJd on CoEs, my guess is the Judge would say something like > "a challenge is one > of the following two things, so a public challenge is one of those things, > done publicly." > But sure, try saying: "I CoE on on the error specified in this hash..." > Or maybe wait for > some discussion on this point first, in case I missed something. > > Of course, it's a trivial result, as the document-keeper could just say > "nope, I don't find > that hash-hidden error, because I don't know what it is, so I'm going to > deny it". > > > [*] "Inquiry Case" used to be the term for a CFJ. This is archaic > language. R991 talks > about a "Case... specifying a matter to be inquired into" as the > definition of a CFJ, which > is close enough. Whether by precedent or merely custom, I don't remember. > > >
