Card Playing Protocol

[kentborg@world.std.com (Kent Borg)]

Oh, GREAT!
 
Tim says (roughly): "Go for it, too bad you are doomed to lose
interest shortly."
 
Geeze, I hate people who make generalizations which are, well, likely
to be borne out yet one more time.  (I *hate* that!)
 
<Mutter grumble hrumph errrrrrah, phooy!>
 
So I am either supposed to put my tail between my legs now, or take
this as a challenge to "Follow through this time.", or let it soon die
quietly and hope Tim takes mercy and doesn't rub my nose in it.
 
Grrr.  I *hate* reality.
 
 
So here is where I am:
 
1) I am wondering whether a "digital deck of cards" is a good choice.
 
2) If it is, I am wondering how the protocol would roughly be framed
   (Fundamental card operations, etc.), with an eye towards what the
   cryptographic protocols can offer.
 
3) Then, if things make sense, appear tractable, and (drum roll) I
   haven't gone onto fresher blue-sky ideas, I figure out how to start
   building the damn thing.
 
4) And if I ever get to building it I will start first with the little
   pieces (the cryptographic fragments) which might be useful
   individually when I lose interest in building the larger beast.
 
I assume that I will have to do real work at each of these
stages--though I welcome any help.  Both now when the talk is still
cheap and later when the bits hit the disk.
 
 
So far I am at step #1, nudging towards portions of step #2.  I refuse
to be shamed about abandoning step #3 until I have at least embarked
on it.  (Then you can make fun of me.)  Just producing a complete
RFC-quality protocol would be something not to be sniffed at.  In
fact, I am prepared to stop there and *still* feel smug.  (So there!)
 
As for getting people to want to use this digital deck of cards, I
rely on my passion for good user interface design combined with the
continuing popularity of card games.  (And people's continued interest
in playing games with other people rather than just computers.)
 
 
So I am currently at step #.  Is the Card Playing Protocol a good
choice for being:
 
1) cryptographically interesting
2) tractable
3) "harmless"
4) appealing to users?
 
Comments?  (You too Tim.)
 
And Tim, don't worry about my eyes becoming glazed over with images of
Donald Trump.  I don't like The Donald.  Gambling is boring.
(Besides, generalized transactions are far more appealing to a
megalomaniacal fool like me.  How CPP applies remains for me to
understand...)
 
 
-kb, the Kent who is going to be Cometing tomorrow, handy annual open
house at JPL this weekend, etc.
 
 
--
Kent Borg                                                  +1 (617) 776-6899
kentborg@world.std.com
kentborg@aol.com
          Proud to claim 32:00 hours of TV viewing so far in 1994!