3 ms·

> perhaps the White House is making up There's your answer.

jdlshore 6mo ago
Yea, it’s pretty obvious Trump is lying in an attempt to manipulate the market / voter sentiment. And poorly, too.
DoctorOetker 6mo ago
it seems the message flew over your head this isn't a poll about what you or I believe, it's pointing to the existence of at least one lower-noise avenue than the ones pursued observe that your position is not verifiable by the world at large, while cryptographically signed messages would be veriable by us individuals across the whole world. one may counter that the US could make up a large number of fake crypto key / Iranian associations; but surely to the extent that Iran has a functioning regime, surely it could use the IAEA as a channel to communicate the Iranian cryptographic key observations like: * Khamenei confirms meeting Aragchi in person and Aragchi has chosen such and such a public key * Aragchi confirms meeting Khamenei in person and Khamenei has chosen such and such a public key * and so on for all players interested in participating in confirming the present regime or establishing a new one amidst chaos. (if you don't have control over your physicists at a nuclear power plant, then you don't have control over your regime)
- spaghetdefects 6mo ago
  There's nothing to cryptographically verify, the white house is making all of this up.
  - DoctorOetker 6mo ago
    Regardless of what is the actual case, those who have the correct interpretation would be vindicated if my protocol were followed. Why would you oppose a protocol that vindicates the correctness of your interpretation if you are so certain that you are right? Perhaps because you don't feel very certain that you are right...
    - spaghetdefects 6mo ago
      I don't oppose anything. The protocol can't be followed if the white house is making things up (which they've been doing since the beginning of this war -- remember we've already "won" multiple times?). It's great that you have a protocol for verifying identity, that's a great cryptography use-case. It doesn't help when the person talking is just lying though, hence there's no proof available, cryptographic or otherwise.
      - DoctorOetker 6mo ago
        The IAEA is an international body, IF your interpretation was correct and my proposal were followed we'd see messages by Iran that verify such and such public keys for such and such figures and functionaries in Iran (through IAEA), with Trump claiming without proof that they made concessions, since in your scenario it should be in Trumps proclaimed interest to publish such a signed message, so it would help in the case that Trump were lying. Protocol instructs to ignore any communications by counterparty that was not signed. Unsigned communications don't count as happened.

Yea, it’s pretty obvious Trump is lying in an attempt to manipulate the market / voter sentiment. And poorly, too.

it seems the message flew over your head this isn't a poll about what you or I believe, it's pointing to the existence of at least one lower-noise avenue than the ones pursued observe that your position is not verifiable by the world at large, while cryptographically signed messages would be veriable by us individuals across the whole world. one may counter that the US could make up a large number of fake crypto key / Iranian associations; but surely to the extent that Iran has a functioning regime, surely it could use the IAEA as a channel to communicate the Iranian cryptographic key observations like: * Khamenei confirms meeting Aragchi in person and Aragchi has chosen such and such a public key * Aragchi confirms meeting Khamenei in person and Khamenei has chosen such and such a public key * and so on for all players interested in participating in confirming the present regime or establishing a new one amidst chaos. (if you don't have control over your physicists at a nuclear power plant, then you don't have control over your regime)

spaghetdefects 6mo ago
There's nothing to cryptographically verify, the white house is making all of this up.
- DoctorOetker 6mo ago
  Regardless of what is the actual case, those who have the correct interpretation would be vindicated if my protocol were followed. Why would you oppose a protocol that vindicates the correctness of your interpretation if you are so certain that you are right? Perhaps because you don't feel very certain that you are right...
  - spaghetdefects 6mo ago
    I don't oppose anything. The protocol can't be followed if the white house is making things up (which they've been doing since the beginning of this war -- remember we've already "won" multiple times?). It's great that you have a protocol for verifying identity, that's a great cryptography use-case. It doesn't help when the person talking is just lying though, hence there's no proof available, cryptographic or otherwise.
    - DoctorOetker 6mo ago
      The IAEA is an international body, IF your interpretation was correct and my proposal were followed we'd see messages by Iran that verify such and such public keys for such and such figures and functionaries in Iran (through IAEA), with Trump claiming without proof that they made concessions, since in your scenario it should be in Trumps proclaimed interest to publish such a signed message, so it would help in the case that Trump were lying. Protocol instructs to ignore any communications by counterparty that was not signed. Unsigned communications don't count as happened.