> 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. 

Reply via email to