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.
Gaelan > On Mar 5, 2019, at 12:48 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> 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 <dmargaux...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> 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.
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature