►
From YouTube: Working Towards a Plural Public via Common Knowledge and Designated Verifier Proofs by Shrey Jain
Description
Visit the https://archive.devcon.org/ to gain access to the entire library of Devcon talks with the ease of filtering, playlists, personalized suggestions, decentralized access on Swarm, IPFS and more.
https://archive.devcon.org/archive/watch/6/working-towards-a-plural-public-via-common-knowledge-and-designated-verifier-proofs/
Often cited virtues of blockchains are immutability, transparency, decentralization, openness, and trustlessness. Many also think of their most natural applications as financial. Yet a critical affordance of such systems is often missed: the way they are uniquely suited to facilitate cooperation. Here I show how via CK and DVPs.
Speaker(s): Shrey Jain
Skill level: Intermediate
Track: Governance & Coordination
Keywords: Coordination,Non-Financial,Social
Follow us: https://twitter.com/efdevcon, https://twitter.com/ethereum
Learn more about devcon: https://www.devcon.org/
Learn more about ethereum: https://ethereum.org/
Devcon is the Ethereum conference for developers, researchers, thinkers, and makers.
Devcon 6 was held in Bogotá, Colombia on Oct 11 - 14, 2022.
Devcon is organized and presented by the Ethereum Foundation, with the support of our sponsors. To find out more, please visit https://ethereum.foundation/
A
A
They
actually
have
a
boundary
on
who
understands
that
dictionary,
and
so,
if
you've
ever
studied
information
Theory,
you
may
have
heard
of
what's
called
The,
Source
Code
theorem
and
there's
this
concept
called
Hoffman
Coatings
and
what
Hoffman
Coatings
do.
Is
they?
Let
you
take
all
the
information
that
a
computer
needs
to
read
and
collapse
it
down
into
the
minimum
number
of
bits
necessary
for
that
computer
to
process
the
information?
A
Well,
with
these
dictionaries
that
you
build
with
your
friends,
your
family
and
your
co-workers,
you
can
also
communicate
incredibly
efficiently
with
anyone
who's
inside
of
this
boundary,
and
anyone
outside
requires
much
more
context
to
interpret
what
you're
saying,
but
this
doesn't
just
apply
to
inside
jokes
or
idioms.
It
applies
to
things
much
larger,
like
let's
look
at
the
field
of
medicine
as
an
example,
so
of
all
the
medical
literature
that
exists
in
the
world.
A
And
so,
if
I
go
up
to
a
physician
in
Colombia
and
I,
say
cardiac
endoparditis
I
know
what
they
know,
that
cardiac
endocarditis
means
something
in
the
medical
terminology,
and
anyone
outside
of
this
field
may
require
more
context,
but
does
speaking
this
language
or
having
this
terminology
allow
you
to
be
part
of
this
group.
Well,
no
like.
If
I
read
all
this
medical
textbooks,
it
doesn't
make
me
a
doctor
nor
does
reading
the
Bible
make
me
a
Christian
or
reading
legal
textbooks.
Make
me
a
lawyer,
but
what
these
texts
are
very
powerful
for.
A
Is
they
let
you
communicate
incredibly
efficiently
with
people
who
are
inside
of
these
communities,
and
so
another
problem
that
you
may
see
is
like.
Let's
put
three
scientists
on
a
panel
biologists,
an
economist
and
a
sociologist
who
are
all
aimed
at
talking
about
how
to
solve
climate
change,
and
they
each
come
onto
this
panel
with
each
of
their
own
dictionaries
with
each
of
their
own
peers
and
what
ends
up
happening?
Is
you
end
up
getting
the
most
high
level
abstract
communication
possible
and
we
don't?
A
A
lot
of
this
work
is
influenced
by
some
of
the
early
thinkers
like
John,
Dewey
and
Walter
Lipman
who've
taught
a
lot
talked
a
lot
about
the
plural
publics,
as
well
as
what
it
means
to
have
informed
decision
making
Dana
Boyd
from
Microsoft
research,
who's
talked
a
lot
about
context,
collapse
and
I've.
Had
the
pleasure
of
working
with
Joseph
Halpern
from
Cornell
who's
done
a
lot
of
the
early
thinking
on
distributed
systems
and
common
knowledge,
and
so
when
we
talk
about
pluralism,
there's
many
different
axes
of
pluralism.
There's
one
that
felt
most
right
to
me.
A
Well,
there's
this
concept
in
Game,
Theory,
psychology
and
computer
science
called
common
knowledge
and
a
fact
is
said
to
be
common
knowledge.
If
everyone
knows
that
this
proposition
is
true,
everyone
knows
that
everyone
knows
that
this
proposition
is
true,
and
everyone
knows
that
everyone
knows.
Everyone
knows
that
everyone
knows
its
proposition
is
true
and
when
I
first
read
this,
it
didn't
make
much
more
sense
to
me
as
to
what
common
knowledge
was,
and
so,
let's
walk
through
a
quick
example.
A
So
I
want
you
to
imagine.
We
have
two
generals
here,
a
general
on
the
left
called
General
a
and
a
general
on
the
right
called
general
b,
and
their
goal
is
to
attack
in
the
valley
of
this
mountain
in
a
coordinated
way
and
the
only
way
that
they
can
communicate
is
through
a
messenger,
and
this
messenger
has
the
possibility
of
getting
lost
in
this
Valley.
And
so,
let's,
let's
say
General
a
says,
to
General
B,
let's
attack
at
6am.
A
Do
they
attack?
No,
because
General
a
doesn't
know
that
general
b
got
the
message.
Let's
say:
General
B
acknowledges
the
message:
do
they
attack?
No
because
general
b
doesn't
know
that
General
a
got
the
acknowledgment.
Let's
say
that
generally
acknowledges
the
acknowledgment
General
a
doesn't
know
that
general
b
got
the
acknowledgment
of
the
acknowledgment,
and
so
what
I'm
trying
to
Showcase
here
is
that
if
a
messenger
can
get
lost,
we're
unable
to
achieve
systems
that
can
attain
what's
called
common
knowledge.
A
But
maybe
we
don't
need
common
knowledge.
Maybe
we
need
something
as
close
to
common
knowledge
as
possible,
and
that's
often
referred
to
as
what's
called
common
key
belief,
it's
a
as
close
to
form
of
common
knowledge
that
we
can
attain
in
systems
where
communication
is
not
guaranteed,
and
so,
let's,
let's
now
relate
common
knowledge
back
to
these
concepts
of
coordination
and
cooperation.
So
coordination
is
when
you
have
a
set
of
Agents,
take
action
simultaneously.
A
So
altruistic
cooperation,
which
is
a
fascinating
topic
to
psychologists,
is
when
I
incur
a
cost
of
myself
to
the
benefit
of
others,
and
why
would
we
do
this,
and
so
we've
been
studying
these
concepts
of
emotions
that
relate
to
reciprocation?
Like
trust,
empathy,
gratitude
and
we
don't
probabilistically
measure
these
emotions,
we
can
categorize
them
I,
don't
trust
you
with
20
accuracy,
I,
either
trust
you
I,
don't
or
I,
really
trust
you
I,
really,
don't
trust
you
and
humans
are
able
to
categorically
depict
the
set
of
emotions
in
these
categorical
ways
but
mutualism.
A
What
I
think
is
what
we
often
talk
about
in
the
web.
3
ecosystem
is
when
I
take
action,
you
benefit,
but
so
do
I,
and
this
problem
is
not
as
much
of
an
emotional
one
related
to
trust
or
gratitude.
It's
much
more
related
to
what's
called
an
epistemological
problem.
How
well
can
I
measure
someone
else's
knowledge
and
in
a
lot
of
the
psychology
and
research,
both
empirically
and
theoretically,
we've
seen
that
not
only
can
humans
categorize
emotions,
but
we
can
also
categorize
these
levels
of
knowledge
that
people
have
so
I.
A
A
Let
me
walk
through
a
brief
historical
explanation
as
to
why
we
lack
common
knowledge
today,
so
we
we
talked
earlier
about
the
common
P
belief
and
why
we
lack
it
in
the
coordinated
attack,
problem
and
I'm
going
to
work
through
two
key
axes
of
communication
right
now,
one
being
knowledge
and
the
second
being
privacy,
and
so
when
we
communicate
in
these
physics
in
this
physical
world
and
I
have
a
messenger.
Privacy
is
not
guaranteed
I.
A
This
messenger
may
go
and
leak
the
message
they
may
not
say
the
message
in
full
and
so
privacy
lacks,
and
my
common
key
belief
as
we
saw
earlier,
is
weak.
We
then
move
to
forms
of
writing
where
at
least
I
know
whatever
I
write
on
the
sheet
of
paper
is
going
to
get
sent
to
that
person,
but
it
still
doesn't
solve
these
problems
of
common
key
belief
or
leakage,
and
after
50
years
of
the
envelope
being
used
for
packaging
gifts
in
Japanese
culture,
we
finally
found
ways
to
use
it
to
package
messages.
A
This
improved
privacy,
but
still
didn't
improve
the
way
we
communicate
for
common
knowledge,
I'm
going
to
skip
through
forms
of
radio
Telegraph
and
move
to
the
ways
we
communicate
today,
like
SMTP
for
email,
SMS
for
texting
or
xmpp
for
WhatsApp
or
telegram.
We
can
achieve
these
forms
of
common
p-belief,
but
they
actually
quite
hard
to
do
in
an
interface
level
and
they'll.
A
Explain
why
in
a
second
and
as
we've
seen
in
a
lot
of
these
centralized
settings,
we
still
lack
the
Privacy
that
we
want
to
achieve
as
well,
and
so
my
question
now
is:
where
does
a
distributed?
Ledger
play
a
role
in
all
of
this
or
a
distributed
Ledger
being
the
key
word
here
distributed,
Ledger
does
not
imply
blockchain,
and
so,
where
we've
kind
of
come
to
in
this
setting,
and
if
you've
been
to
a
lot
of
the
talks
today.
Clearly
there's
something
going
on
with
the
relationship
between
zero
knowledge,
proofs
and
blockchains.
A
A
But
let's
make
it
much
more
clear,
like
what
exactly
will
distributed
ledgers
play
a
role
in
The,
Next
Step
of
human
communication.
Well,
the
first
is
that
they
actually
are
easier
to
build
an
interface
on
to
achieve
common
pay,
belief
and
we'll
show
why
that's
the
case
in
a
second,
and
the
second
is
that
we
can
actually
provide
a
commitment
to
knowledge
when
we
communicate
so
an
example
of
this
at
Microsoft.
A
What
we
did
is
we
switched
the
way
we
communicate
from
emails
and
Excel
spreadsheets
for
our
supply
chain
and
started
to
use
a
blockchain,
because
at
every
step
of
the
inventory
process,
we
had
common
knowledge
about
the
inventory.
Who
was
where
what
was
where?
And
everyone
knew,
that
everyone
knew
that
everyone
knew.
We
were
able
to
save
a
lot
of
retroactive
issues
that
we
normally
face
and,
in
fact
this
led
to
a
savings
of
50
million
a
year
and
one
of
our
many
Supply
chains
of
our
Azure
stack.
A
What
are
other
examples
of
where
we
could
use
this?
Well,
we
could
use
it
for
reporting
for
Social
Action
social
movements
or
reporting
on
sexual
assault
cases
whistleblowing
whenever
you
need
to
have
these
coordinated
attacks,
and
it's
really
important
to
have
common
knowledge,
its
protocols
and
distributed
ledgers
that
do
this
in
a
really
nice
way,
with
these
two
properties
that
I
commented
on
earlier-
and
the
second
part
is
that
blockchains
sorry
today
in
communication,
we
lack
a
commitment
to
knowledge.
A
Communication
is
very
accessible,
very
free
in
a
way
that
is
good,
but
also
with
cooperation
purposes,
leads
to
extendious
extraneous
amount
of
communication
to
get
something
done.
What's
really
interesting
about,
what's
being
explored
in
the
web.
3
ecosystem
is
how
we
can
program
these
commitments
and
the
way
we
communicate
and
so
there's
a
protocol
that
was
a
while
ago
called
ethereum
whisper.
Some
of
the
core
team.
A
There
went
and
Built
This
research
project
called
the
VAC
P2P
Network,
where
they
reveal
part
of
the
vector
on
an
elliptic
curve
from
your
public
key
to
your
private
key,
as
you
start
to
send
messages
over
a
threshold
limit
to
prevent
spam,
and
so
there's
an
actual
programmatic
commitment
that
you
make
with
every
message
you
send
we're
starting
to
see.
Community
currencies
or
tokens
with
regards
to
governance
play
a
large
role,
and
how
can
we
use
these
tokens
to
stake
when
we
want
to
communicate
with
regards
to
cooperation
purposes?
A
Okay,
so
what
have
we
said
so
far?
Clearly,
common
knowledge
is
a
requirement
for
cooperation.
If
and
if
we
want
to
cooperate,
we
need
to
do
so
in
a
very
rich
way
and
we've
walked
through
this
historical
example,
and
now
we
can
see
why
there's
a
case
where
we
might
want
to
explore
with
distributed
ledgers,
to
communicate
for
cooperation.
A
So
now
we
got
the
cooperation
box
checked.
Let's
now
figure
out,
how
can
we
do
it
across
different
sets
of
people,
but
if
we
want
to
cooperate
with
another
individual,
the
first
step
is
being
able
to
recognize
who
are
we
cooperating
with
and
in
the
web
3
ecosystem
decentralized
identity
is
its
own
Suite
of
problems.
A
So
earlier
this
year
we
put
out
a
paper
that
tried
to
exhaust
a
lot
of
the
work
being
done
on
the
decentralized
identity
Frontier,
and
we
looked
at
different
Primitives
and
we
look
at
what
what
needs
to
be
done
to
identify
an
individual.
What
becomes
even
harder
is
how
we
identify
a
set
of
individuals.
How
do
you
put
a
boundary
around
a
group
of
people,
and
so
let's
talk
a
bit
more
about
why
we've
lost
boundaries
today
in
the
way
that
we
communicate.
A
So
in
the
past
we
had
these
very
rich
forms
of
tribal
Dynamics,
whether
it
was
literally,
we
were
part
of
tribes
or
was
religion,
and
we
had
a
very
clear
sense
of
who
was
inside
of
a
group
and
who
was
outside
of
a
group,
and
these
strong
tribal
Bonds
were
quite
good
with
respect
to
communication
communicating
quite
efficiently,
and
we
understood
each
other's
dictionaries
quite
well.
But
these
tribal
Dynamics
were
quite
oppressive
to
certain
subgroups,
and
so
we
started
to
find
ways
to
liberate
these
individuals.
A
But
some
would
argue,
we've
gone
so
far,
so
that
these
individuals
now
feel
lonely
alienated
and
are
communicating
on
systems
that
try
to
rebuild
these
bonds
like
social
media
platforms
that
have
done
so
in
a
way
that
lack
context.
And
so
what
is
context
here?
It's
I'm
communicating
to
this
invisible
audience
that
lacks
the
context
to
understand
the
dictionaries
that
I
communicate
with
with
my
peers
and
the
thing
that
we
like
in
communication
today
is
collective
disclosure.
We
talk
a
lot
about
I
choose
to
disclose
I
disclose
this
I.
A
Do
that
we
don't
have
enough
of.
We
collectively
can
do
things
with
strong
guarantees.
So
now,
let's
talk
about
some
tools
that
we
can
use
today
to
go
and
do
this
so
I
want
to
introduce
to
people
if
you're
not
familiar
with.
What's
called
designated
verifier
proofs,
there
are
a
set
of
proofs
that
say
instead
of
proving
X,
let's
prove
Alice
will
prove
the
statement
either
X
is
true
or
I
am
Bob
again
it's
one
of
those
things
that
takes
time
to
sit
with.
So
let's
walk
through
an
example
to
make
this
much
more
clear.
A
Let's
develop
a
scheme
that
makes
us
much
less
accessible
to
the
agents,
so
let's
say
I'm
the
CIA
and
an
agent
wants
to
go
and
turn
on
me
and
I
am
I'm
unaware
of
this,
and
they
want
to
go
to
the
work
for
the
KGB.
So
agent
a
goes
to
the
KGB
and
says:
hey
I'm
part
of
the
CIA
and
I
want
to
work
for
you.
Naturally,
what
does
the
KGB
need
to
know?
A
They
need
to
validate
this
information,
it's
very
critical
that
they
validate
this
information
with
high
validity,
but
we
want
to
mitigate
the
CIA
that
this
agent
can
go
and
do
that.
So
how
do
we
do
this?
So
we're
now
going
to
walk
through
the
designated
verifier
proof
scheme?
We're
not
going
to
go
through
the
technical
details
here,
but
if
you
want
to,
you
can
come
up
to
I
and
someone
who
I'll
introduce
in
a
second
in
a
minute,
but
the
way
that
this
works
is
we
have
two
two
inputs.
A
The
first
is
that
the
CIA
now
actually
makes
a
claim
agent,
a
is
part
of
the
CIA,
and
so
they
have
this
registry
that
exists
of
all
the
agents
that
are
part
of
the
CIA,
and
so
they
can
pass
it
through
this
circuit
with
and
signing
it
with
their
private
key
that
they're
part
of
the
CIA.
The
key
thing
to
recognize
is
that
there's
an
or
gate
here,
and
so
this
constraint
can
be
satisfied
by
either
the
CIA
actually
making
this
claim
or
agent.
A
A
private
key
can
also
make
this
message,
and
so,
let's
walk
through
why
this
is
so
important.
So
again
the
CIA
can
make
this
claim
or
two
the
agent
a
can
make
this
claim
and
we
won't
know
which
one
it
is,
but
agent
a
knows
that
the
CAA
doesn't
have
their
private
key.
So
if
this,
if
this
circuit
satisfies
with
the
output
of
one,
then
it
must
be
the
case
that
the
CIA
made
this
claim
and
they
agent
is
not
lying
and
so
to
a
third
party.
A
They
don't
know
who
made
this
claim
whether
agent
a
is
lying
or
the
CIA
actually
said
this
message.
So
the
only
person
who's
persuaded
by
this
information
is
actually
agent
a
because
they
know
the
CIA
doesn't
have
their
private
key,
and
so
what's
the
bigger
part
of
all
of
this?
Well,
you
can't
ever
prevent
someone
from
sharing
information,
but
you
can
prevent
that
information
from
being
persuasive
in
its
shared
form.
A
So
we
can
mitigate
the
belief
that
this
has
in
its
shared
form,
and
so
what
we
start
to
move
towards
is
what's
called
Collective
disclosure,
and
so
let's
work
it
through
a
much
more
web.
3
example
of
this
now,
let's
say
that
I'm
a
Dao
and
we
have
a
secret
that
we
want
to
keep
within
the
Dow
dowels
today
are
quite
leaky.
A
That
third
party
won't
be
persuaded
with
high
guarantees
to
that
information.
But
now,
let's
say
we
want
to
collaborate
with
another
group.
What
we
can
do
is
we
can
have
some
internal
proposal
to
say
hey.
Do
we
want
to
share
this
information
with
agent
D,
if
so,
let's
issue
a
DVP
again
with
our
our
wallet
and
they
have
agent
DB
part
of
that
claim.
So
now,
agent
D
is
persuaded
because
they
are
part
of
the
designated
verifier
scheme.
A
A
The
way
we've
tried
to
rekindle
these
bonds
between
people
to
build
and
re
refix
context
collapse
has
been
quite
weak
and
we
need
boundaries
so
that
we
can
have
these
forms
of
intelligence
and
collaborative
work
across
communities,
and
so
some
experiments
that
our
team
wants
to
run
with
the
communities
is,
let's
go
and
build
a
protocol
where
every
claim
for
a
DVP
is
with
every
claim
within
a
dow
is
issued
through
a
DVP.
So
we
can
start
to
have
some
structure
and
maintain
the
Integrity
of
information
within
Dallas.
A
Let's
play
with
other
commitment
schemes
with
Community
currencies
or
revealing
vectors
on
an
elliptic
curve
for
how
people
commit
to
knowledge.
Let's
also
build
tools
for
anonymous
reporting
where,
if
I
want
to
come
forward
about
a
case,
I
can
do
so
in
a
way
that
first
of
all
can
leverage
their
knowledge
technology,
but
also
attain
common
P
beliefs.
A
So
I
know
that
other
people
are
also
going
to
come
forward
and
they
know
that
I
will
come
forward,
but
do
so
in
a
very
protected
way
where
we
have
a
boundary
around
these
claims
and
Via
DVP,
and
this
can
apply
to
things
like
social
movements
as
well,
and
so
what
I've
tried
to
walk
through
in
this
talk
is
that
there's
something
clearly
quite
powerful
about
blockchains.
But
none
of
this
had
anything
to
do
with
staking
Community
currencies
defy.
It
was
literally
all
about
achieving
knowledge
and
I.
A
Think
there's
something
really
interesting
about
these
cryptographic,
Primitives
and
something
quite
powerful,
but
we've
yet
to
understand
how
we
can
interweave
these
Primitives
with
the
value
that
cultural
communities
can
add
to
the
community,
and
so
that's
some
of
the
work
that
we're
trying
to
be
building
and
working
with
the
community.
To
do
that,
and
so
thank
you,
foreign.
A
Yeah
I
think
right
now,
because
it's
so
early
the
work
it's
been
I
think
Enrico
and
I
only
release
a
lot
of
the
DVP
stuff
in
the
past
two
weeks.
So
it's
been
small
Outreach
to
the
communities
that
we're
part
of,
but
part
of
being
at
Devcon
was
like
reaching
out
to
Dao's
here
and
talking
with
them
to
see.
Is
there
an
interest
in
working
with
these
DVP
schemes
and
again
I?
A
Think
part
of
even
me
speaking
here
today,
is
to
have
the
audience
or
people
who
watch
the
recording
to
come
and
work
and
find
us
to
find
ways
that
we
can
just
be
of
value.
All
of
the
work
we're
doing
is
an
open
source,
and
so
the
goal
is
to
just
see
how
some
of
these
ideas
can
facilitate
some
of
the
outcomes
with
the
communities
we're
trying
to
work
with,
and
so
we
would
also
like
guidance
on
how
to
work
more
with
the
community
as
well.
A
It's
really
anyone
who's
like
very
motivated
and,
as
we
can
see
with
people
here,
these
web3
communities
are
very
interested
in
experimenting
with
these
tools.
So
naturally
it's
a
very
nice
vehicle
to
explore
with
a
lot
of
these
ideas,
and
so
the
the
Target
right
now
has
been
webbed
through
communities.
Yes,
and
if
there's
oh
I
see
another
question
and
if
anyone
has
any
of
the
more
technical
questions,
I
would
love
to
work
with
everyone
we're
going
to
be
in
the
ZK
Community
Hub
on
the
main
floor
as
well
later
in
the
afternoon.
D
Hi,
thank
you
for
the
presentation
very
interesting
I.
Just
think.
When
I
hear
your
talk,
I
was
thinking.
How
is
that
applied
to
ethereum
conference,
so
I
think
there's
a
context.
There's
commitment,
for
example,
when
I
go
to
buy
the
ticket
for
the,
for
this
conference
is
sold
out
within
seconds
later,
very
fast,
but
at
the
same
time
I
have
no
idea
how
many
ticket
was
been
sold
and
so
there's
any
anything
from
your
talk
that
can
help
the
ethereum
foundation
to
to
organize
a
better
conference
in
the
future.
A
Yeah,
it's
it's
an
interesting
problem.
I
think
I'd
want
to
think
a
bit
more
about
it
and
if
I
do
I'll
relay
it
back
to
the
community
but
I
think
in
general,
anything
that
applies
to
a
large
group
of
people
taking
actions
simultaneously.
So
it
feels
as
though
you
have
teams
or
organizations
that
are
all
trying
to
get
tickets.
E
A
Yeah
I
guess
I
think,
like
one
example
is
like:
let's
look
at
reporting
internally
in
big
tech
companies
in
general,
for
like
sexual
assault
cases,
we
want
to
make
sure
that
when
we
come,
I
want
to
make
so
for
the
common
knowledge
scenarios.
I
want
to
make
sure
that
if
I
come
forward,
other
people
are
also
going
to
come
forward,
because
the
risk
is
always
on
that
first,
individual,
a
much
greater
degree
than
any
individual
that
follows.
A
So
if
we
can
coordinate
in
a
coordinated
attack
way
on
a
protocol
that
facilitates
common
knowledge,
the
probability
of
each
person
taking
action
simultaneously
will
be
higher.
But
in
the
context
of
let's
say
what
you're
talking
about
with
the
KGB
for
dvps
being
a
bit
too
strenuous,
even
if
I
take
any
communication
channel
for
any
celebrity
or
any
person,
who's
high
profile,
let's
say
I'm,
the
president
of
a
country
and
I
communicate
with
my
peers.
I
may
not
even
be
saying
anything,
that's
secret
or
relevant
to
National
Defense
or
putting
other
people
at
risk.
A
So
if
you
submit
so
again,
like
the
point
here
being,
is
that
if
I
am
lying,
then
I'm
lying
and
then
the
third
party
is
not
persuaded
by
it,
I'm
lying
to
myself.
Basically,
but
if
the
CIA,
let's
say
in
this
example,
lied,
there's
no
incentive
for
them
to
lie
in
this
scheme.
If
that
lie,
unless
there's
like
a
broader
set
of
incentives,
Beyond
this,
like
actual
member
registry
or
secret,
and
so
if
I
lie
it
doesn't
do
anything
to
the
scheme
because
I'm,
just
persuading
myself
in
that
scenario,.