> On Mar 5, 2019, at 1:03 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey <m...@timon.red> wrote: > > Yes, I don't see how this is any different from "stating it to yourself". > Your publication of the hash (if it even is a hash - I see no evidence that > it's not just a random string of hexadecimal digits) didn't meaningfully > communicate anything to anyone else. Now, the truly interesting question is what happens if G. does give us the ability to decrypt and it contains the required information. I think that would not be a retroactive announcement (but maybe it would...). I do think it meets the lower bar for a “statement” under CFJ 3714, and therefore would work. We should probably come up with a legislative fix, because this seems like a bug that can be scammed somehow.
- DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500 Aris Merchant
- Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500 Kerim Aydin
- Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500 Cuddle Beam
- DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500 Kerim Aydin
- DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500 D. Margaux
- Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 5... D. Margaux
- Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forb... Gaelan Steele
- Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] ... Timon Walshe-Grey
- Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 5... Ørjan Johansen
- Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forb... Kerim Aydin
- DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500 Ørjan Johansen
- DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500 Rance Bedwell
- DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500 James Cook
- DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500 James Cook