DIS: Re: BUS: [CfJ][Contract][@Treasuror] Somewhat Annoying Experiment
Gratuitous arguments: There is probably no lowest integer with this
property, because integers include negative numbers.
Also, hi, I'm still lurking, apparently. Hopefully adding DIS: to
title was automatic, I don't remember. (If not, sorry.)
--
Bayushi
On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 11:16 PM Gaelan Steele via agora-business
wrote:
>
> I create and become a party the following contact, titled "Somewhat Annoying
> Experiment": {
> The Eligible Revocation can be calculated as follows:
> Let x be the lowest integer that, represented as a decimal number in ASCII,
> has the SHA256 hash
> 9b722e5d98390e12c7f29dc74d30a52f2c152a35fd47f9614e35f235e025b085.
> The Eligible Revocation is x % 10 (where % is the modulo operator).
>
> This contract accepts any transfers of assets.
>
> A party to this contract can, by announcement, revoke a number of coins in
> its possession exactly equal to the Eligible Revocation.
>
> Gaelan can, by announcement, transfer assets owned by this contract to emself.
> }
>
> I transfer 10 coins to the above contract.
>
> I revoke 5 coins in that contract's possession by announcement. [No Faking
> disclaimer: this may not work]
>
> CfJ: {Somewhat Annoying Experiment has exactly 5 coins.}
>
> Note: The SHA256 hash above is a random 64-bit value. While I believe there
> must exist a lowest number with that hash (there is an infinite number of
> integers, but a finite number of possible SHA256 hashes), I don't believe it
> can be determined other than by brute force. This follows from a discussion
> in the Discord about whether or not we have any limits on computational
> complexity of contracts.
>
> Gaelan
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] August zombie auction
On 2020-08-10 00:35, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote:
On 8/7/2020 2:38 PM, Falsifian via agora-official wrote:
I hereby initiate a zombie auction, with the following method and lots.
I bid 411 coins.
No faking disclaimer: I'm pretty sure this bid works; I can't find a
limitation in the regs or auction rules that would prevent current zombie
holders from bidding in zombie auctions. But this disclaimer is in case I
missed something and it fails the way it used to.
-G.
Agreed; I think it works.
R1885 used to have:
Rules to the contrary
notwithstanding, the master of a zombie CANNOT bid in a zombie
auction.
I guess it was lost somewhere in the recent auction overhaul.
Since the new auction rules don't even mandate that anything called
"bidding" be involved, I'm not sure the same provision would work. How
about something like this:
Amend Rule 2532 (Zombies) by appending the following paragraph:
{
Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the talisman for one player
CANNOT be transferred to a different player if the receiving player
already owns a zombie's talisman.
}
Then you could bid in the auction, but you'd have to give up your old
zombie to collect your prize.
--
Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] [Weekly Report] Forbes 485
On 2020-08-13 19:49, shelvacu via agora-discussion wrote:
The CFJ already resolved TRUE, right?
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg10490.html
Looks like that one slipped past me.
I will say though that I'm a bit peeved after reading this. I came up
with this wording to fix this exact problem and everyone agreed that it
meant what it was supposed to.
I'll fix this problem in the next report. Feel free to CoE though.
--
Trigon
I’m always happy to become a party to contracts.
I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this
The following text comprises a public message:
{{{ DISCLAIMER: There are no game actions in this message. }}}
DIS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] [Weekly Report] Forbes 485
The CFJ already resolved TRUE, right? https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg10490.html On 8/13/20 10:44 AM, Reuben Staley via agora-official wrote: > * This report assumes that shelvacu has not had any Agoran birthdays > (continued from last report).
