On Wed, 3 Jul 2013, Alex Smith wrote: > On Wed, 2013-07-03 at 12:59 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Ah, when you said 'contract', I thought you meant something enforceable, > > which the promise can't do (but private contracts could). That is, if > > Murphy and I made a private agreement resulting in this PoA, but I abuse > > the PoA outside of the bounds of the agreement, Murphy doesn't have any > > legal recourse as far as I can tell. > > Right, there were basically three elements of a subroutine contract: the > binding promise, the secrecy, and the ability to have complete control > over the timing (i.e. no interaction required from the other player). > > Promises can only do two out of three (and not the first two, either).
Hmm, I actually wonder if a promise *could* do #1: Conditions for Cashing: the message is within the bounds of messages allowed by the private NONDEAD agreement. On its own, this would probably run afoul of being indeterminate. But the definition of determinate (R1023c) may give some wiggle-room due to "be reasonably determined (without circularity or paradox) from information reasonably available". Would the following meet the "reasonably available" test: Conditions for Cashing: the message is within the bounds of messages allowed by the private NONDEAD agreement. This is assumed to be true unless the author publicly CoEs the cashing within 72 hours, providing the appropriate agreement text showing that it is out of bounds. Hmm, maybe.
