You can accomplish this with plain old cryptography. No blockchain needed.
There are lots of ways to do it. One of them would be for Fuuture to publish the hash to literally anywhere.
Public + cryptographically verifiable + distributed + append-only still does not equal blockchain, as long as we're defining blockchain as something that was not invented before 2009.
So these hashes are distributed. How do we know they haven't been altered since future reveal? How does one find the "true" dataset? Trust random people on the internet?
no, since it's public, if you care so much about it, you keep a periodic snapshot of the hashes. So you're trusting yourself (and math). What's missing to be a "blockchain" in (what should be) the generally accepted definition is byzantine fault tolerance.
Right so save some time and put the hashes in a Merkel tree and publish on the Bitcoin blockchain. Now the proof can be found trustlessly and the longest PoW points to the true dataset
Seems like a great gamer handle. It's leetspeak, a decent name to go by on the servers, and it's a color. One could maybe theme a site in tune with one's nickname that way.
There's a great zen adage:
Master Sui was sitting with two boys who had recently entered his abbey, Won, and Feng. They had just recently been over taken by a robber while performing an errand for the abbey.
Master Sui asked Won what he had learned from the experience:
"I'll never trust anyone ever again!" said Won.
Master Sui asked Won to go, and never to return.
Master Sui asked Feng what he had learned from the experience:
"I've learned to exercise caution around those I do not know".
Master Sui said "You may stay Feng. Does a carpenter mistrust all nails because one bends?"
Here, we have a wealth of information about the poster. He writes, reads, and blogs about Computer Science. Sure some of his opinions may turn out to be a bent nail, and because of that you should always exercise some caution while reading anyones views. But you'll gain far more by reading, examining, and adding (and subtracting) to (and from) your worldview, in my opinion at least, then you will by spending that energy worrying about trust worthiness. (Generally you'll find out whether or not a source is trustworthy by examining the views espoused for yourself, again, in my opinion. I'm a software engineer with a bit more than a year of professional software development experience, in the process of obtaining a masters, with degrees in Computer Engineering and Mathematics. At this point, while I am no expert, I can often at least find information to be skeptical of.)
Depending on what state cpython is in when you inject, pyrasite may deadlock or segfault the interpreter. All it does is try to get the GIL and then inject the code.
Pyringe first gets to a safe place before injecting by (essentially) faking the delivery of a signal, then waiting for python-level signal handler dispatch to trigger. By doing so, it ensures the interpreter first gets itself into a state in which it can execute arbitrary python code before performing the injection.
Pyrasite has a bunch of features pyringe doesn't, though.
It doesn't really send a signal to your program. It just sets flags inside cpython to make it think so. (pendingbusy and pendingcalls_to_do, to be precise)
