M cannot replicate the particle after they read it, so A and B will detect M’s attempt when they compare results.

The same as classical one-way encryption, it only works through authenticated channel tho. It’s not magic, you have to have some kind of pre-existing secret or rely on third-party authentication

The slop will be caught, your rating lowered until all your messages are simply filtered out as spam.

you could try to cook up some kind of trust chain, without totally abandoning privacy.

Get a government-certified agencies minting master key tied to your id. You only get one, with trust rating tied to it.

With that master key you can generate infinite amount of sub-ids that dont identify you but show your trust rating(fuzzed).

Have a cross-network reporting system that can lower that rating for abuses like botting.

idk Im just spitballing

I remember being super excited over 13, only to fall asleep playing it. 98% of combat encounters was just mashing X-button :/

Same. I’ve been having a blast for the last year with three other ppl from work: we go for coffees, play board games every two weeks, chat in messages.

Haven’t been so happy with my social life since, like, ever.

A lot of moving around, not knowing what city or country I will be at next week.

Was a wild ride for sure, glad I was fortunate and persistent enough to find a place I can tentatively call home again ❣️

Russian military draft.

True, can’t think of how would you combat a cleverly written aim-bot.

Don’t tell the client what’s going on outside its vision, I suppose? Add a small buffer to compensate for latency, so wall hack would be more of a “corner hack”.

I imagine the alternative way to combat kernel-level cheats would be asking player for all his game state data, validating it on a server?

Wouldn’t work on peer-to-peer and you’d have to do a bunch of unnecessary compute(recalculating every tick if player-generated data is possible according to game rules) but its the only way I can think of.