I'd just like to mention I haven't actually succeeded in making a non-registration action in Japanese, and I think all my attempts at voting in such were thrown out, which I believe is the correct way to interpret the rules. (While there are technical and cryptographic differences, using another language is basically a form of encryption if not everyone can read it IMO.)
天火狐 On Jul 20, 2017 15:40, "Cuddle Beam" <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote: > >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. >> >> >> >
