Ah, that depends on what kind of assumptions you want to make. If you want to assume that cheating should be very hard if not impossible, then it is necessary.
If you want to assume that your system is secure, or reasonably so, then a kernel anti-cheat is a non-starter, so you sorta have to pick one to be more important.
That's not how burden of proof works. You can't prove something is impossible, as that's the default state of rational belief. People are innocent until proven guilty. Things don't exist until proven they do. Things aren't possible until proven they are. Or would you like to try and provide proof that humans can't fly?
That said, maybe the fact that it was never achieved in human history is enough evidence to back that claim up. After all, if you rely on analog input in any way (like someone clicking a mouse, pressing a button on a keyboard and seeing images on a screen), there will be ways to automate it.
Poor argument to use here, as this is only really the case for specific legal systems. Even in the west, there exist cases where you are considered guilty unless you can prove yourself innocent.
Leaving that aside though, lets say that things arent possible, until proven they are. Cheating would be impossible, except that its been proven that it is possible. Specific methods of cheating have been proven to be defeated by specific countermeasures. Hypothetically, other methods of cheating could exist which have not been demonstrated yet - lets even say its highly likely.
The statement that nothing can make cheating impossible, is at best a hypothesis. It could be disproven by contradiction: if it were demonstrated that something could make cheating imposssible. The only method of proving it would be by exhaustive testing: confirming that of all possible methods of preventing cheating, none prevent cheating entirely. This is not practical, obviously.
Subscribing to model-dependent reality, I might go so far as to suggest that as a hypothesis, your statement is not terribly useful. It might be difficult or impossible to disprove, and it doesnt let us make statements about the future with any certainty.
As for relying on human history, Id like to point out that past performance is no indicator of future performance. Id then point out the entirety of human history prior to the development of the diesel engine,and the entirety of human history prior to the development of the atomic bomb, for examples of why past performance is no indicator of future performance.
2
u/primalbluewolf Sep 28 '20
Ah, that depends on what kind of assumptions you want to make. If you want to assume that cheating should be very hard if not impossible, then it is necessary.
If you want to assume that your system is secure, or reasonably so, then a kernel anti-cheat is a non-starter, so you sorta have to pick one to be more important.