3 ms·
The word you're looking for isn't "write-only". It's "immutable". And it's not the immutability that's responsible for the attack you're discussing, but the lac
by quotemstr 6y ago
The word you're looking for isn't "write-only". It's "immutable". And it's not the immutability that's responsible for the attack you're discussing, but the lack of a rooted chain of trust. You seem to be imagining a world in which the keyserver is responsible for authenticating the keys uploaded to it. I don't want to give the keyserver people that kind of power or responsibility.
- renewiltord 6y agoInteresting: I wouldn't describe an "append-only" database as "immutable" (after all, you are mutating it by adding things to it) but it appears that the common parlance actually does refer to databases that are append-only as immutable, perhaps as short hand for immutable-entry databases. Annoys me disproportionately. But the people have spoken.
- smabie 6y agoYeah, it's like not you would call an in-memory B-tree immutable if you could only add more nodes but not change existing ones. Clearly other people are wrong and we should stand up for what is right!
- barrkel 6y agoIt's readable and appendable, but not updatable. That doesn't mean immutable; with versions or timestamps, you can create mutable semantics on top of an appendable store.