Seems like the solution here is to define (in a rule) “by announcement, 
stating…” as requiring the “stating” bit to be part of the public message.


> On Mar 5, 2019, at 12:48 PM, Kerim Aydin <> wrote:
> CFJ, barring twg:  G. has earned 5 coins for the Herald's Report of 
> 17-Feb-2019.
> I plan to provide proof to the judge of the CFJ that a statement
> containing the required earnings information hashes to the
> previously-published hash.
> CFJ 3714 implied fairly strongly that it is not required to state the
> coins earned "to someone else".  It was "stated" in a written form,
> and the hash of the written form is the proof that I did so at that
> particular time.  CFJ 3714 strongly suggested that "stating it" in
> Discussion would work, with the only question being the burden of
> proof that the statement was, in fact, made in some form (since
> Discussion is visible to others, that satisfies the burden of proof).
> I don't see how, if Discussion would work (as CFJ 3714 specifically
> allows), "stating it" to a hash generator with proof that statement
> was made at that time is any different.
> I don't think any application would be retroactive, I think it would
> be "evidence previously unavailable is now revealed".  But because I'm
> interested in that retroactivity question, I haven't provided the
> original statement text at this point in time.
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 10:09 AM D. Margaux <> wrote:
>>> On Mar 5, 2019, at 1:03 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey <> 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.

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Reply via email to