**From:** Tim Freeman (*tim@fungible.com*)

**Date:** Sat Jul 19 2008 - 08:00:31 MDT

**Next message:**Matt Mahoney: "Re: Proof by construction, again (was Re: [sl4] prove your source code)"**Previous message:**Tim Freeman: "Trusted third party, by construction (was Re: [sl4] trade or merge?)"**In reply to:**Stuart Armstrong: "Re: [sl4] prove your source code"**Next in thread:**Matt Mahoney: "Re: Proof by construction, again (was Re: [sl4] prove your source code)"**Reply:**Matt Mahoney: "Re: Proof by construction, again (was Re: [sl4] prove your source code)"**Reply:**Stuart Armstrong: "Re: Proof by construction, again (was Re: [sl4] prove your source code)"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

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" <dragondreaming@googlemail.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 tim@fungible.com

**Next message:**Matt Mahoney: "Re: Proof by construction, again (was Re: [sl4] prove your source code)"**Previous message:**Tim Freeman: "Trusted third party, by construction (was Re: [sl4] trade or merge?)"**In reply to:**Stuart Armstrong: "Re: [sl4] prove your source code"**Next in thread:**Matt Mahoney: "Re: Proof by construction, again (was Re: [sl4] prove your source code)"**Reply:**Matt Mahoney: "Re: Proof by construction, again (was Re: [sl4] prove your source code)"**Reply:**Stuart Armstrong: "Re: Proof by construction, again (was Re: [sl4] prove your source code)"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:03 MDT
*