I favour this case. On Mon, 5 Feb 2018 at 21:27 Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well it seems viable to me sooooo I'll give it a shot I guess lol. > (Wielding paradoxes is a weird thing, I hope I'm doing it right). Here are > the proto-actions: > > I create a contract by paying 1 shiny to Agora, with the following text: > ------- > "This sentence is false." > If the statement above is true, I owe 1 shinies to Agora, but if its false, > I owe no shinies to Agora. > If I owe a positive amount of shinies, I cannot make any transfer of > shinies until I fulfill paying the amount owed. // <--- Mainly so that it > can't be shot down as "irrelevant", because shinies are a game mechanic. > ------- > > I raise a CFJ on the following: I owe Agora an amount of shinies due to the > contract above. > > > > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 5:32 AM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Maybe this is a dumb question but, wouldn't it be possible to just > > "program" yourself some kind of paradox into a contract, for example, > some > > variant of the Paradox of the Court > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_the_Court where I have to pay > > someone or not, then request in a CFJ to know if I have to pay them or > not? > > > > Then, have that CFJ gain a verdict of "Paradox" (and not because of the > > case itself, but because of the contract you've engineered to make the > CFJ > > read from it that value of "Paradox", to avoid "PARADOXICAL is not > > appropriate if (...) the undecidability arises from the case itself or in > > reference to it.") > > > > Then claim a win via the Paradox rule. > > > > Sounds viable? > > >
