Hacker News Reader

Comment by spaghetdefects | Hacker News Reader

There's nothing to cryptographically verify, the white house is making all of this up.

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...

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com