Oh don't worry about me, it's the only vaguely controversial thing that's happened so far this week so it's pretty easy to keep track of in my head. If it was actually too confusing I'd be docking karma from you myself. :P
-twg ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 9:06 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote: > Yeah, to be clear this seems like a fairly simple legislative fix. > However, pursuant to the hash system not working for Spaceships (I > think), I'd worked on a draft of "how to act by hashes" and came up > against questions of retroactivity and evidence. So I'm used the > ambiguity of "stating" in this rule to see if we need to change some > of the action and announcement timing concepts, after CFJ 3714 implied > that something like this would work. It's really a boring bug in > itself, the most that can be done with it AFAICT is to deny oneself > some earnings and annoy the Treasuror... > > Notice of Honour > -1 G. (for testing this in a way that puts burden on the Treasuror) > +1 twg (for having to be the Treasuror) > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 12:57 PM Gaelan Steele g...@canishe.com wrote: > > > 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.