(Q - Julien-BDX: Excuse me Michel, earlier, you said that basically you will have a sort of filter to be able to manage the solutions, if I understood correctly.
So that means that at least the area will be in the cloud?)
MB: No, I would not have a filter, I would have a key to decrypt what will be sent to me. But no, the solution will not be in the cloud; nothing, no element of the solution will be in the cloud. None.
(Q - Julien-BDX: Ok, so it's you who operates this filter?)
MB: Absolutely, and as I took the precaution of working with a bailiff in a thorough and systematic manner, that means that if I snap tomorrow, there is a follow-up planned, everything comes together etc… And the system continues.
(Q - Palestrina: Talking about a solution deposition system, because there is one, when we say verifier, indeed, it ignites the imagination a little. So we should say a system deposit, centralized or decentralized if you use a blockchain for example, but it doesn't matter)
MB: But of course it will be a blockchain. In any case, everything will be time stamped to the nearest thousandth of a second and the only problematic case, I'm still thinking about it, is that, if someone goes to dig, finds, and at the same time, someone another sends its solution to the blockchain.
(Q - Palestrina: That would be a crazy coincidence!)
MB: Indeed, that would be crazy, but we cannot neglect it. So this is a clause that will be clarified.
(Q - ??: The one who digs up, I guess he has a phone or something, so he'll call you pretty much instantly if he digs up the owl?)< /u>
MB: The one who digs up, he has everything to contact me obviously, but above all he has the countermark in his hands…
(Q - ??: And it's him who will have the advantage. Well, if that happened, like, I don't know, at 11 p.m. they give you a solution, and at 12:30 a.m. a guy digs up the owl and he calls you.)
MB: This is actually the last problem that arises. So I say that as a personal reaction, I would say, of course, the person who is going to dig up will always have priority over anyone else. However, it is still necessary to take into account elements of French legislation which could possibly lead to disputes, litigation or, etc. So this is one point, this is the last point on which I must provide clarification, but today I do not know the answer. I want to say “OK, it’s the person who digs up who wins”. In any case, in all cases, nevertheless, we must ensure that at the level of legislation, we are not open to attack.
(Q - Niorflan: Michel, it's Niorflan, good evening, you have an alternative, I think that the owls, most of them would agree, is that both are winners. Two owls, one wing each…)
MB: That’s an interesting proposition.
(Q- Niorflan: You're giving us another one!)
MB: Well yes, I only have to give away three kilos of gold and then here we go, let's do another one. No, more seriously, no but really, it's an important question for me. Firstly because I have been navigating this story for 30 years, and at one point, I say to myself “what the hell have you gotten yourself into and why are you here today”, with all the twists and turns? which took place. So it's worth thinking quite carefully and exhaustively about all the ins and outs of online verification provisions. But I'm very attached to it, because I think it's really the future. I think that everything that was conceived, imagined, envisaged, with Max Valentin 30 years ago, is today completely outdated, and that today, we have other means, legislation which has evolved and other tools at our disposal that allow us to look at things differently. The last point that really remains to be defined in a precise way, how would I say it, is this appreciation that we must have between the virtual and the real, between what is going to happen on the Internet and then someone who will dig there. There you go, that’s a real debate.
(Q - Xavier D’Homan: Michel, I have an important question, will we have proof of deposit?)
(Q - Gringos: Ah you must have an email, right? Like an accused in a bank.)
MB: Proof of submission of solutions on the Internet?
(Q - Xavier D’Homan: No, at all, that is to say we will send you solutions and…)
MB: No, but you are not going to send me solutions, you are going to submit your solutions via the blockchain system which is currently being developed.
(Q - Xavier D’Homan: Yes, I understood, but is it dated?)
MB: It’s time-stamped, it’s recorded, it’s irrefutable. Listen to me, the bailiff will have communication that such a message arrived at such and such a time, et cetera. The bailiff won't know what's inside, but he will have the recording of the arrival of this message. I will hold the key which will allow this message to be decrypted and at the moment when the bailiff could intervene, I communicate the key to him, he decrypts the message and there he says Xavier D'Homan sent such day, such hour, such second his solution is the right one. Or no, it's not the right one. It is time-stamped, everything will be recorded and everything will be a duplicate with the bailiff.
(Q - Xavier D'Homan: It was to avoid Crolet 2.0 because the problem is someone telling you tomorrow well I sent you the right solutions, Michel Becker., there you go .)
MB: Crolet, he just did the trick to me Crolet, he wrote to me saying I bought the book which is falling apart. Except that this moron forgets that he ordered the book at a time when it was more the edition that was falling apart, but the new edition. So I'm waiting for him to prove to me that his book is unstuck. But as luck would have it, he didn't insist. Crolet like everyone has his limits, my dear.
(Q - Apollo: Michel, I have a question.)
(Q - Julien-BDX: Finally, it won't just be you who will have access to this blockchain given that the blockchain is still the principle, it is that it is public, so we can check the blocks of the blockchain even if we will not see the content, we will see that we wrote in the blockchain at such and such a time)
.
MB: Well, that’s why the bailiff will always be able to say that on a given day at a given time you sent your solution.
(Q - Harvester: But it's the one who digs normally who takes out the owl who will win, it's not the one who posts the solution and who..)< br />
MB: That's a question that remains unanswered, on which I cannot decide because I am not a lawyer. This last point must actually be resolved, on the fact that there can be a little bit of overlap between someone who physically finds the countermark before, after at the same time as someone who sends their solution on the Internet.
(Q - ??: This telescoping could take more time. Because if I can, our friend Roc..).
MB: And not necessarily, that’s not what the debate is. Yes, no, the debate is to say, at a given moment, do I have the right to write that whoever digs up the countermark having solved the last solution will always have priority over someone else who presents their solution on the internet. That's the real debate. There's no such thing as it's that or nothing. I do not think that the law prohibits specifying this point and deciding that the organizer decides that the person who physically digs up the countermark will have precedence over the person who gives a solution via the internet.
MB: No, I would not have a filter, I would have a key to decrypt what will be sent to me. But no, the solution will not be in the cloud; nothing, no element of the solution will be in the cloud. None.
(Q - Julien-BDX: Ok, so it's you who operates this filter?)
MB: Absolutely, and as I took the precaution of working with a bailiff in a thorough and systematic manner, that means that if I snap tomorrow, there is a follow-up planned, everything comes together etc… And the system continues.
(Q - Palestrina: Talking about a solution deposition system, because there is one, when we say verifier, indeed, it ignites the imagination a little. So we should say a system deposit, centralized or decentralized if you use a blockchain for example, but it doesn't matter)
MB: But of course it will be a blockchain. In any case, everything will be time stamped to the nearest thousandth of a second and the only problematic case, I'm still thinking about it, is that, if someone goes to dig, finds, and at the same time, someone another sends its solution to the blockchain.
(Q - Palestrina: That would be a crazy coincidence!)
MB: Indeed, that would be crazy, but we cannot neglect it. So this is a clause that will be clarified.
(Q - ??: The one who digs up, I guess he has a phone or something, so he'll call you pretty much instantly if he digs up the owl?)< /u>
MB: The one who digs up, he has everything to contact me obviously, but above all he has the countermark in his hands…
(Q - ??: And it's him who will have the advantage. Well, if that happened, like, I don't know, at 11 p.m. they give you a solution, and at 12:30 a.m. a guy digs up the owl and he calls you.)
MB: This is actually the last problem that arises. So I say that as a personal reaction, I would say, of course, the person who is going to dig up will always have priority over anyone else. However, it is still necessary to take into account elements of French legislation which could possibly lead to disputes, litigation or, etc. So this is one point, this is the last point on which I must provide clarification, but today I do not know the answer. I want to say “OK, it’s the person who digs up who wins”. In any case, in all cases, nevertheless, we must ensure that at the level of legislation, we are not open to attack.
(Q - Niorflan: Michel, it's Niorflan, good evening, you have an alternative, I think that the owls, most of them would agree, is that both are winners. Two owls, one wing each…)
MB: That’s an interesting proposition.
(Q- Niorflan: You're giving us another one!)
MB: Well yes, I only have to give away three kilos of gold and then here we go, let's do another one. No, more seriously, no but really, it's an important question for me. Firstly because I have been navigating this story for 30 years, and at one point, I say to myself “what the hell have you gotten yourself into and why are you here today”, with all the twists and turns? which took place. So it's worth thinking quite carefully and exhaustively about all the ins and outs of online verification provisions. But I'm very attached to it, because I think it's really the future. I think that everything that was conceived, imagined, envisaged, with Max Valentin 30 years ago, is today completely outdated, and that today, we have other means, legislation which has evolved and other tools at our disposal that allow us to look at things differently. The last point that really remains to be defined in a precise way, how would I say it, is this appreciation that we must have between the virtual and the real, between what is going to happen on the Internet and then someone who will dig there. There you go, that’s a real debate.
(Q - Xavier D’Homan: Michel, I have an important question, will we have proof of deposit?)
(Q - Gringos: Ah you must have an email, right? Like an accused in a bank.)
MB: Proof of submission of solutions on the Internet?
(Q - Xavier D’Homan: No, at all, that is to say we will send you solutions and…)
MB: No, but you are not going to send me solutions, you are going to submit your solutions via the blockchain system which is currently being developed.
(Q - Xavier D’Homan: Yes, I understood, but is it dated?)
MB: It’s time-stamped, it’s recorded, it’s irrefutable. Listen to me, the bailiff will have communication that such a message arrived at such and such a time, et cetera. The bailiff won't know what's inside, but he will have the recording of the arrival of this message. I will hold the key which will allow this message to be decrypted and at the moment when the bailiff could intervene, I communicate the key to him, he decrypts the message and there he says Xavier D'Homan sent such day, such hour, such second his solution is the right one. Or no, it's not the right one. It is time-stamped, everything will be recorded and everything will be a duplicate with the bailiff.
(Q - Xavier D'Homan: It was to avoid Crolet 2.0 because the problem is someone telling you tomorrow well I sent you the right solutions, Michel Becker., there you go .)
MB: Crolet, he just did the trick to me Crolet, he wrote to me saying I bought the book which is falling apart. Except that this moron forgets that he ordered the book at a time when it was more the edition that was falling apart, but the new edition. So I'm waiting for him to prove to me that his book is unstuck. But as luck would have it, he didn't insist. Crolet like everyone has his limits, my dear.
(Q - Apollo: Michel, I have a question.)
(Q - Julien-BDX: Finally, it won't just be you who will have access to this blockchain given that the blockchain is still the principle, it is that it is public, so we can check the blocks of the blockchain even if we will not see the content, we will see that we wrote in the blockchain at such and such a time)
.
MB: Well, that’s why the bailiff will always be able to say that on a given day at a given time you sent your solution.
(Q - Harvester: But it's the one who digs normally who takes out the owl who will win, it's not the one who posts the solution and who..)< br />
MB: That's a question that remains unanswered, on which I cannot decide because I am not a lawyer. This last point must actually be resolved, on the fact that there can be a little bit of overlap between someone who physically finds the countermark before, after at the same time as someone who sends their solution on the Internet.
(Q - ??: This telescoping could take more time. Because if I can, our friend Roc..).
MB: And not necessarily, that’s not what the debate is. Yes, no, the debate is to say, at a given moment, do I have the right to write that whoever digs up the countermark having solved the last solution will always have priority over someone else who presents their solution on the internet. That's the real debate. There's no such thing as it's that or nothing. I do not think that the law prohibits specifying this point and deciding that the organizer decides that the person who physically digs up the countermark will have precedence over the person who gives a solution via the internet.