Anonymous ID: 3bca21 Oct. 22, 2020, 11:34 a.m. No.11215197   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>5241

>>11215123

 

If we had some sort of system with a handed of encryption key we could leave board open for emergency bakes, but give the rightful hand-off baker the authority to lock emergency bakes or shill bakes before they became a problem.

 

The problem is that even if a proper baker hand-off takes place, that baker has no ability to do anything about breads that are already open.

 

There's got to be some sort of authorization for hand-offs that still leaves e-bakes open.

Anonymous ID: 3bca21 Oct. 22, 2020, 11:52 a.m. No.11215649   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>5673

>>11215483

 

That's not the only problem. We have to leave the board open for anybody to bake in case the baker ghosts and we need an E-bake. I think natsec rules prevent Q from posting certain information to projectdcomms because he's the /BO there.

 

We need a way for a legitimate baker to lock E-bakes and shill bakes without the /BO having to be around while still leaving open E-bakes.

Anonymous ID: 3bca21 Oct. 22, 2020, 11:55 a.m. No.11215742   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>5762 >>5825 >>5850

>>11215558

>>11215492

 

>honestly I thought removing the notables from the bake, and a notables bread, was a good idea. kind of the same idea, correct?

 

I like this. I don't see why notables need to be tied directly to the start of each bread. Why don't we just have a central location for notables that gets backed up in a few different places to prevent it being tampered with?

 

That's the main problem I can see: somebody with access to a notables only bread or board could erase things or insert things.