Valhalla Legends Archive

Turing completeness doesn't necessarily indicate socket support. It just means the language can be used to solve any computational problem. For socket support, you need a socket driver/library, and ideally some kind of network (without a network, sockets are only useful for local IPC, and there are usually better solutions than sockets for local-only IPC).

Consider Brainfuck. Due to the nature of the language, it is impossible to have sockets (or any libraries for that matter) without introducing changes to the language itself. It is, however, turing complete.

-1 to yoni. Dont give me -1.
Yes. Cobalt really is a language (the reason I mentioned it is because I figured you would never have heard of it).

Ok...Here's my question: why do you not provide info for cd key encryption? Are you trying to monopolize the cd keys by forcing people to use BNLS?

Quote from: Undeference on May 30, 2003, 01:57 PM
Ok...Here's my question: why do you not provide info for cd key encryption? Are you trying to monopolize the cd keys by forcing people to use BNLS?

I don't see why they should release something publically after they've spent the time researching it. Them offering the service of a Battle.net logon server is more than anyone could honestly ask for, and it is their decision and right to allow or disallow users to use the service. If you have some false opinion of what BNLS does which was extracted from ignorance that you don't agree with, then don't use it and continue using old-logon system functions (which have been publically distributed) for old-logon system clients.

it would be unwise to flame the people most likely to help you.

Quote from: Undeference on May 30, 2003, 01:57 PM
Ok...Here's my question: why do you not provide info for cd key encryption? Are you trying to monopolize the cd keys by forcing people to use BNLS?

Not sure if that was aimed at me (bnetdocs) or not?

The reason is that BnetDocs is a *documentation* website. It is not a one-stop-shop for code. I doubt any code will ever be posted there, with the exception of the BNLS checksum function.

If someone with a thorough enough understanding of SHA-1 or CheckRevision would like to contribute a detailed explanation of those procedures - prose, not code, but perhaps with pseudocode - I would be more than happy to add them to the site. I do fear, however, that they would do more harm than good, since the average BnetDocs user probably doesn't have the coding experience necessary to make use of such information.

I believe c0ol posted pseudo of CheckRevision somewhere.

You are prolly right, arta. I don't want to be kicked off of bnetdocs simply bc I was abusing you, but, since part of my bot will be open source, I will let anyone who can actually understand the code know how to encrypt the cd keys. The reason I would prefer that someone be willing to tell me how to do it is it will save me many months or research to be able to take someone's word on it.


[What would happen if I asked [email protected]?]

Quote from: Undeference on June 02, 2003, 01:41 PM
You are prolly right, arta. I don't want to be kicked off of bnetdocs simply bc I was abusing you, but, since part of my bot will be open source, I will let anyone who can actually understand the code know how to encrypt the cd keys. The reason I would prefer that someone be willing to tell me how to do it is it will save me many months or research to be able to take someone's word on it.


[What would happen if I asked [email protected]?]

Your mail would probably be returned as undeliverable, because battle.net doesn't have any mail accounts.

Anyways, I think most of the Blizzard support team doesn't know (or care) how the CD-key data is sent - they're not people who wrote it.  Furthermore, I doubt that the Battle.net programmers would possibly risk their jobs by disclosing company secrets to a complete stranger

Quote from: smoke on May 23, 2003, 10:58 PM
Now I have to admit, that would be pretty damn hilarious to see an actual application written in scheme.  

Hmm, pretty sure I wrote an app in scheme when I was messing with that...

I've written applications in Scheme. None of them did anything remotely useful, but they WERE applications.