11700+ entries in 0.02s
mod6: pressable or printable, doesn't matter. the wot is the dictator.
mod6: because why would i want gavin's vpatch stuck in the middle of my flow, if he's not in my wot?
mod6: it is completely dependant on this.
mod6: <+ben_vulpes> flow is simply the directed acyclic graph of patches, and is *not* predicated on wot contents. << disagree.
mod6: and this would be predicated upon who is in your .wot.
mod6: the printable flow, is the same as the pressable flow.
☟︎ mod6: if you were to print the flow, it would still not show up.
mod6: <+ben_vulpes> pressable being operative word there. << it is inconsequencial.
mod6: but i apologize, and see that this is the wrong way. and there is a better way.
mod6: this is why they exist in the first place, these WILD vpatches, because my impl wasn't written with this in mind. i was more written with the idea that a guy would place things in .wot/.seals/patches by hand and would know what is what.
mod6: you will, you must, have everything signed for it to show up in a pressable flow.
☟︎ mod6: they will never, ever show up.
mod6: i thought that you just wanted to it to be left out of any possible flow.
mod6: i thought you didn't want it to fail.
mod6: i apologize for this oversight about the WILD patches.
mod6: it sounds like everyone wants instead, a general overhaul to get to the 'wot variant press' instead, which would also fix the bug, because these vpatches, without a corresponding seal, would simply be ignored.
☟︎ mod6: i proposed a fix for mine. i think it was ultimiately rejected.
mod6: i think, he's saying, what is the benefit of V honking when it doesn't find a key in your wot that matches a seal in your seal dir, provided that you don't pull a mod6.
mod6: with some minor tweaks
mod6: im just trying to minimize the warts a bit.
mod6: phf: naw. even mircea_popescu has encouraged me to release it, even if it has warts.
mod6: that seems fine, and yes, less painful to me.
mod6: i like the idea that you've got 'mod6 & ben_vulpes' in your .wot, and that you hvae 69,000 sigs in your .seals dir, and only select out the ones that match the .wot.
mod6: And I'm happy to embark on a genesis once we resolve these current problems and the testing and review by lords is complete.
mod6: i do want that traceibility from V, of my V.
mod6: and who knows, imho, there's no gigantic rush to make a genesis for v. especially when we're still trying to work out how it should work.
mod6: creating a genesis is a different thing too; v create a genesis of v. which i did work out, but alas, as you are eluding to, i never published because was nervous that it hadn't been very well audited yet.
mod6: mine is signed 69 times for sure.
mod6: let's fight about it.
mod6: infact, i stole that error message.
mod6: i posit that it did indeed.
mod6: just wanna make sure we all understand what we want.
mod6: i'm happy to re-write/overhaul/whatever this thing.
mod6: but i'm trying to get down to brass tacks as much as possible.
mod6: now, we not want that behviour any longer.
☟︎ mod6: <+ben_vulpes> no, that's death() ing on a patch for which the system had valid seals, yours and mine. << this i dont agree with -- from a technical perspective. it looks to me that girl had "ascii and mod6" in .wot, and when it came across Mr. P.'s genesis .sig, it honked.
mod6: im <+ben_vulpes> just because mircea_popescu didn't complain about the failure at the time doesn't make it right. << maybe.
mod6: read the link! that's exactly what it does right now, this very minute.
mod6: (former lumps from having this impl before, and then removing it to its current state)
mod6: i just feel like we've been here before. like i have some pavalonian response from this.
☟︎ mod6: it's totally fine if that's how we want it.
mod6: i gotta dig through the logs now.
mod6: where's the camera crew?
mod6: what I should do, is ignore that sig, and continue iterating, collecting up all of the mod6 .sigs and then creating a v-tree from just those alone.
mod6: i could almost swear that we had a whole discussion on this before where we wanted it this way??
mod6: so mine, with only 'mod6' in .wot, calls death() when encountering a sig from a person not included in the wot.
mod6: so let's back up a minute, cause i'm still trying to figure out what I need to do here...
mod6: im like, mentally retarded. i need things spelled out in explicit, literal forms. :]
mod6: if it were obvious, we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place.
mod6: we are seriously way beyond 'noshit' territory.
mod6: ok. see maybe there was something there that I didn't pick up on. :/
mod6: fwiw, and this may not be the correct way, but i think i just tried to clone alf's.
mod6: not that it's correct, just for example of "where are we at?"
mod6: mircea_popescu: aha. ok.
mod6: so today, with my impl, you'd have to at minimum, get rid of 3999 sigs from .seals. you could also, if you wanted to, get rid of 68 pub keys in your .wot. iirc, that part isn't required tho.
mod6: aside from the fact that I might have 69 people in my .wot, and 4000 sigs in my .seals dir.
mod6: and in the context of trb, I would end up with, currently, just genesis.vpatch pressed out in 'output_press_dir'
mod6: so what you're saying... is that i should be able to say "v press output_press_dir SOME_HEAD mircea_popescu"
mod6: this is fair, and i agree. i do want it to work the way it it should work. not the way it does work if those are disjointed. no way to get there, except through these kinds of investigations.
mod6: which, is my fault for having a somewhat, apparently, limited grasp
mod6: i want it to work the way that it is supposed to work.
mod6: and not that it shoudn't anyway, there are some things about my implementation that i do not appreciate looking back on it.
mod6: i gather, to implement what is sort of discussed here, will take quite an overhaul
mod6: i suspect that it isn't written that way.
mod6: but if you get rid of everyone else's sigs from .seals, then it's fine and you can happily do 'mod6' tree.
mod6: ok so yah. if you only have 'mod6' in your wot, and you leave ~all~ of the sigs (from alf, mp, trinque, bc) in your .seals dir, then we throw an error and die.
mod6: if you want 'mod6' only, you remove all other guys from your wot
mod6: this perhaps works as is, in a way.
mod6: <+asciilifeform> mod6: you ought to be able to press variant-wots (say, mod6-only) without having to also remove patches mod6 did not sign from patches dir << now this.
mod6: we don't not allow the oppertunity to continue without a signature on a vpatch.
mod6: i think it's fine. you make a testkey, you sign your test vpatches, you press & test, etc. then we're using encryption everywhere. and we fail fast.
mod6: <+mircea_popescu> there shouldn't be any flag - nor should it press unsigned things. && <+mircea_popescu> with the test key ? why not ? fucks with your workflow ?
mod6: <+mircea_popescu> im not sure it has to die when it encounters malformed patch (be it not signed or whatever), but anyway. << i was thinking this was simple because of this:
mod6: <+asciilifeform>
http://btcbase.org/log/2016-12-22#1587685 << the simplest way to implement this is to iterate over the ~seals~, finding corresponding patches << <+mircea_popescu> not particularily correct ; should iterate over patches, check sealness ; act accordingly. << 'validate_seals' does this; iterates over patches, finds seals for patch, verifies or fails if bad ;; now dies if there are none.
☝︎ mod6: that's because toposort hasn't happened yet.
mod6: i need to dig into this a bit more, but the output flow is not necessarily the same order that the signature verification happens in.
mod6: consider the following paste I'll put together... stand by.
mod6: death() means that we die. we stop then and there. continue no further.
mod6: and it's one of the first executing routines in my v.
mod6: err 'validate_seals'. that's the one.
mod6: Essentially, during the verify_signatures subroutine, if a vpatch is found to NOT have a corresponding signature, death().
☟︎☟︎ mod6: So I have a bit of code that I've inserted that will do what you ask.
mod6: but never the less.
mod6: iw asn't sure that the problems you're having are related to this