The transfer tax would, as has been formerly stated, go into paying
salaries to officers, and the tax rate would be variable to find a
certain sweet spot where the money is moving around a lot and lots
of trade is occurring. I'd say it'd go by percentage to people who did
their reports on time and
Goethe wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008, Nick Vanderweit wrote:
But then people would know how many FOR and AGAINST votes there had
been, and would simply use that to judge how they would vote.
That's ok. Games to play:
-So who votes first?
-What if you vote as a decoy and change your
On 6/11/08, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 12:34 PM, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I harvest 1990, a CFJ, for 2 WRV.
I mill 6 * 9 to get X.
I harvest 1990, a CFJ, for 2 WRV.
You can't harvest the same CFJ twice.
Aw. Well, I guess I have to wait for 1992
Nick Vanderweit wrote:
So should I just write up a proto-proposal for an ordinary linear
numerical system of currency with the proposed ideas (transfer tax,
etc)?
We already have currencies. We don't need a new one, and they're easy
to create if we do find a need for one. What you need to do is
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can't harvest the same CFJ twice.
I don't see that in the contract.
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 12:03 AM, Nick Vanderweit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems like people would just
put all of their money in banks and try not to spend it so that it
would grow, and, while in the real world banks serve to give loans for
higher interest than they pay for a savings
2008/6/12 Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Can we just stick to contested proposals plz?
No. :-P
ehird
On Wednesday 11 June 2008 8:11:33 Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008, Nick Vanderweit wrote:
But then people would know how many FOR and AGAINST votes there had
been, and would simply use that to judge how they would vote.
That's ok. Games to play:
-So who votes first?
-What
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Ben Caplan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
B: I vote on it with md5 hash bar.
(The string hashed as bar would have to include cryptographic salt:
rather than FOR, it would be FOR /*8947521705932789*/.)
How confident are we that MD5 doesn't have collisions between
On Thursday 12 June 2008 3:14:10 Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Ben Caplan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
B: I vote on it with md5 hash bar.
(The string hashed as bar would have to include cryptographic salt:
rather than FOR, it would be FOR /*8947521705932789*/.)
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
Now, to discourage private collaboration (I'll vote FOR, you vote
AGAINST.)
Instead of discouraging, how about setting up a game where it's beneficial
to lie and backstab during private negotiations, Diplomacy-style (eg. points
that make backstabs
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 1:34 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
Now, to discourage private collaboration (I'll vote FOR, you vote
AGAINST.)
Instead of discouraging, how about setting up a game where it's beneficial
to lie and backstab during
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Ben Caplan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We can just legislate that if you use a colliding hash, your vote
doesn't count. Thus the reveal would look like {
bar
FOR /*8947521705932789*/
(AGAINST /*8947521705932789*/ hashes to baz.)
}
That doesn't
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 4:52 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course, all this indicates to me is that we should use something
stronger than MD5 for this.
You know... to fake a vote in this manner (have your collision be not
meaningless junk but a desired value), you would need a
2008/6/12 comex [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Compromise on SHA-1?
Probably.
Or... SHA-512. It's no harder to implement than SHA-1 (mostly), it is
a lot slower, but meh.
Note that 2ch BBSs get quite well with a short substring of a crypt()
call! Though, they can be cracked in about a week. Their defense
Didn't I tell you to vote FORx7 my proposal?
Have you? I haven't noticed it.
ehird
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 3:00 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You know... to fake a vote in this manner (have your collision be not
meaningless junk but a desired value), you would need a pretty amazing
supercomputer. I don't think most Agorans have those to play with.
I don't know the
On Thursday 12 June 2008 3:52:35 Ian Kelly wrote:
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Ben Caplan wrote:
bar
FOR /*8947521705932789*/
(AGAINST /*8947521705932789*/ hashes to baz.)
That doesn't prove anything.
Of course, all this indicates to me is that we should use
2008/6/12 Ben Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Ah.
Is MD5 really that easy to brute-force? hmm...
How about if each ballot also includes a proof-of-work? This should
make searching for collisions harder.
That is, instead of random noise as your salt, include the MD5 hash
of a string beginning
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008, Quazie wrote:
ooh, i miss the card games. Didn't you end up winning the last one by
usinga card to draw another card, and then that card allowed you to
undo your last card played?
Yah, that was the first win-by-paradox.
The contest I was talking about was not those
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 4:52 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The fact is that no matter what seed you
choose, it's possibe to find a seed for the opposite vote that
collides with it, so such a rule would simply require us to invalidate
all votes.
I think if we limited seeds to a
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
How confident are we that MD5 doesn't have collisions between
FOR.$somehash and AGAINST.$someotherhash?
It does inherently have collisions, and there's a known attack that has
demonstrated actual instances of collision (though not with meaningful
strings yet). The next
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 5:48 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For the purposes of this message, 'xkcd' means A(g_64,g_64), where A
is the Ackermann function
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ackermann_function) and g_64 is Graham's
number (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham%27s_number).
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 5:45 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/6/13 Matt Berman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I would like to be registered as a player in agora.
I would also like to use this name: Schrodinger's Cat.
-- Schrodinger's Cat
I wish to join etc. are defined, but is 'I would
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 7:58 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 5:45 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/6/13 Matt Berman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I would like to be registered as a player in agora.
I would also like to use this name: Schrodinger's Cat.
2008/6/13 Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
It's the same sentiment, isn't it?
-root
Yes. And?
(I know Schrodinger's Cat from an IRC channel, so this isn't newbie
bashing: I'm interested)
ehird
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 5:10 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/6/13 Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
It's the same sentiment, isn't it?
-root
Yes. And?
(I know Schrodinger's Cat from an IRC channel, so this isn't newbie
bashing: I'm interested)
ehird
If you aren't sure,
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 8:10 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/6/13 Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
It's the same sentiment, isn't it?
-root
Yes. And?
(I know Schrodinger's Cat from an IRC channel, so this isn't newbie
bashing: I'm interested)
ehird
I had thought that
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 8:21 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I initiate an inquiry CFJ on the statement: {Schrodinger's Cat is a
player.}
Arguments and counter-arguments: This thread.
ehird
I wish to be registered as a player, therefore I am a player.
-- Schrodinger's Cat
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
-- Schrodinger's Cat
I wish to join etc. are defined, but is 'I would like to be registered'?
It's the same sentiment, isn't it?
Maybe. We'll have to open the box first.
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This (very late and overlooked; my apologies) message initiates the
Agoran Decision to choose the holder of the Assessor office. The
valid options are ROOT and MURPHY, the eligible voters are the active
players, and the
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 9:33 PM, Matt Berman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 9:20 PM, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/12/08, Matt Berman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like to be registered as a player in agora.
I would also like to use this name: Schrodinger's
On 13/06/2008, Matt Berman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 8:21 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I initiate an inquiry CFJ on the statement: {Schrodinger's Cat is a
player.}
Arguments and counter-arguments: This thread.
ehird
I wish to be registered as a
Goethe wrote:
Or, we could bring back mafia, that was nice.
WANT. (They've been doing the Werewolf variety at the local gaming
conventions for a year or two now.)
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 9:16 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Goethe wrote:
Or, we could bring back mafia, that was nice.
WANT. (They've been doing the Werewolf variety at the local gaming
conventions for a year or two now.)
Or how about a round of Bang!?
-root
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Didn't I tell you to vote FORx7 my proposal?
Have you? I haven't noticed it.
I posted the votes shortly after your filling the ticket. Did they not
go through?
BobTHJ
Pavitra wrote:
I initiate a criminal case against comex for falsely stating to a
public forum that Hillary Rodham Clinton is a senator, who in fact
has never even been so much as a player.
This is unsuccessful because it did not specify the rule allegedly
breached.
Original Message
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Thank you for writing to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:35:41 -0400
Dear Friend:
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and concerns with me
via e-mail. I hope you
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 10:41 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 13/06/2008, Matt Berman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 8:21 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I initiate an inquiry CFJ on the statement: {Schrodinger's Cat is a
player.}
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 11:31 PM, Schrodinger's Cat
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
According to Rule 869:
A person CAN register, unless prevented by the rules, by
announcing that e registers, wishes to register, requests
registration, or requests permission to register.
As I
40 matches
Mail list logo
