4 ms·

It's a game, not everyone is playing it for the same reason and the input is anything but random. There aren't really any conclusions you can draw from this oth

It's a game, not everyone is playing it for the same reason and the input is anything but random. There aren't really any conclusions you can draw from this other than it's entertaining.

scott_s 13y ago
I'm not sure if there conclusions that one can draw from it, but I think it has use for reasoning about security - both physical and virtual. It sounds like the people who want to progress in the game have started to adopt a set of "best practices" to both deal with honest players and trolls. I think the constant presence of trolls makes it quite interesting. The obvious parallels are to a public-facing computer system, where attackers are constantly trying to get in. The difference, here, though, is that no one has privileged access. I find that an interesting thought experiment: is it possible to have any security when attackers have the same rights as legit users?
- gizmo686 13y ago
  >is it possible to have any security when attackers have the same rights as legit users? Isn't this roughly the problem that bitcoin set out to solve?
- shittyanalogy 13y ago
  Except without a rigid definition of security, or goals there's nothing to compare, analyze, hypothesize, or even observe. And that question, everyone already has equal rights on the internet, that's why security software focuses mostly on identity verification.
  - scott_s 13y ago
    You don't need explicit things "to compare, analyze, hypothesize or even observe" in order to influence how you think about a problem. And on individual places in the internet, people do not have equal privileges. For example, there are things that the moderators here on HN can do that you and I cannot.
    - shittyanalogy 13y ago
      If you don't define your problem, how can you come to understand how you think about it. That's achieved through identity recognition. All computers are generally treated the same.

It's a game, not everyone is playing it for the same reason and the input is anything but random. There aren't really any conclusions you can draw from this other than it's entertaining.

scott_s 13y ago

I'm not sure if there conclusions that one can draw from it, but I think it has use for reasoning about security - both physical and virtual. It sounds like the people who want to progress in the game have started to adopt a set of "best practices" to both deal with honest players and trolls. I think the constant presence of trolls makes it quite interesting. The obvious parallels are to a public-facing computer system, where attackers are constantly trying to get in. The difference, here, though, is that no one has privileged access. I find that an interesting thought experiment: is it possible to have any security when attackers have the same rights as legit users?

gizmo686 13y ago
>is it possible to have any security when attackers have the same rights as legit users? Isn't this roughly the problem that bitcoin set out to solve?
shittyanalogy 13y ago
Except without a rigid definition of security, or goals there's nothing to compare, analyze, hypothesize, or even observe. And that question, everyone already has equal rights on the internet, that's why security software focuses mostly on identity verification.
- scott_s 13y ago
  You don't need explicit things "to compare, analyze, hypothesize or even observe" in order to influence how you think about a problem. And on individual places in the internet, people do not have equal privileges. For example, there are things that the moderators here on HN can do that you and I cannot.
  - shittyanalogy 13y ago
    If you don't define your problem, how can you come to understand how you think about it. That's achieved through identity recognition. All computers are generally treated the same.