the obvious question

From: goldbug
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 08:15:27 -0500
Subject: the obvious question
Message-Id: <0404@obol-list>

nobody wants to type this, so i will.

the whole thing rested on twelve people destroying what they held. eleven of
us held a share. one of us held the generating material, because one of us ran
the ceremony.

there is no procedure by which any of us can verify that he destroyed it.
there never was. we all read that section and we all signed anyway, because we
liked him.

i am not accusing anyone of anything. i am saying that a protocol which
requires me to like someone is not a protocol.

From: ferryman
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 19:52:11 +0000
Subject: re: the obvious question
Message-Id: <0406@obol-list>

i destroyed it. i said so on 17 november 2007 and it is in the archive.

there is nothing i can do to prove a negative and you know that, which is why
you waited until now to ask, when it no longer costs you anything.

From: praxis
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 09:04:36 +0100
Subject: re: the obvious question
Message-Id: <0409@obol-list>

he cannot prove it, and you cannot prove otherwise. those are the same
sentence and neither of you is going to win it.

for what it is worth: i believe him. i would also not have designed it this
way. both of those have been true since 2007, and i should have said the
second one out loud at the time.

From: cache
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 02:30:19 +1100
Subject: re: the obvious question
Message-Id: <0412@obol-list>

archive closed. nothing has been posted here in four weeks.

i will keep the copy running for as long as i have the machine. if it ever
goes down, it goes down with everything on it. so if any of this mattered to
you, take what you need now.

[index]