Hacker News Reader

>what? no, the original repo is the real repo. my point is, is that the transparency makes it impossible for you to not trust me/GitHub.

So we are back to trusting you again. transparency is not certain from github or from you

View on HN

trusting implies believing, right? you don't need to believe or trust, you can just see the repo yourself. git diff hash1 hash2.

if the repo is public it's inherently transparent. I'm not sure I follow your rebuttal.

The central authority (here, Github or the repo owner) can rewrite history by rebasing and then force pushing. The only way you can detect that as a third party is by cloning the repo and periodically pulling to make sure the history of the main/master branch has not been altered.

If it has been altered, how can you prove that you didn't just rewrite history locally and then make a spurious claim? You would need others with local copies to vote on which history was legitimate.

if one were to actually implement what I'm describing, the transactions would need to be signed by the participating parties, so it wouldn't be possible to do what you're describing anyway.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com