Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Feasible Victory & Better Auctions
I've been overly paranoid sometimes and used stuff like
"I bid X coins and here's some tasty salt: F71FEC2C0685313F98D883EFFFC36F"
On Tue, 3 Jul 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> It's weird, I can't imagine how I would pronounce "SHA". I suspect the cause
> is just that I've only ever seen it written down and never actually spoken
> about it, so I've never _needed_ to pronounce it, but it's actually quite
> disturbing not being able to sound it in my head like with other words.
>
> More on-topic, if we're using hashes for the announcer's bid, why not just go
> the whole way and make _everyone_ submit hashes of their bids, to be revealed
> after the auction ends? That way, there's no need to place any trust in the
> announcer at all.
>
> I do have my own reservations about using hashes at all, though, because this
> particular context seems easier than many hashes to brute-force. There are
> only a limited number of possible bids, and although you can obfuscate it a
> bit by using different typographical conventions ("21", "21 coins", "21
> Coins", "21 instances of Agora's official currency"), that seems easy for
> someone not terribly familiar with computers/IT to mess up and accidentally
> reveal their bid.
>
> Apologies for the delay on the Treasuror report, by the way; it's taking a
> while to sift through last month's reports to see who's due how many
> salaries, because several offices were created or abolished and
> agora-official was unavailable for part of the time. Hoping to have it up
> tomorrow (Wednesday).
>
> -twg
>
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
>
> On July 3, 2018 10:58 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Obviously, it is ess-aych-ay-five-twelve.
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 3, 2018, 08:11 ATMunn iamingodsa...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > On 7/1/2018 8:04 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Also
> > > > >
> > > > > add in a new paragraph "Rules and Contracts notwithstanding, no
> > > > >
> > > > > Announcer may ever bid on an Auction they are Announcing".
> > > >
> > > > This is a massive disadvantage: It's unfair to ask an officer to
> > > >
> > > > completely stay out of a subgame, especially because people choose
> > > >
> > > > offices based on subgames they're interested in.
> > > >
> > > > My suggestion would be something like: In the auction-starting
> > > >
> > > > announcement, the announcer CAN include an SHA-512 hash of eir
> > > >
> > > > bid. Such a bid cannot be changed and MUST be reported with the
> > > >
> > > > auction results.
> > > >
> > > > Wait, an SHA-512 hash? Meaning you pronounce each letter instead of
> > > >
> > > > just saying "sha five twelve"?
> > >
> > > Anyways, acronym pronunciations aside, I agree with everything you said
> > >
> > > here.
>
>
>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Feasible Victory & Better Auctions
It's weird, I can't imagine how I would pronounce "SHA". I suspect the cause is
just that I've only ever seen it written down and never actually spoken about
it, so I've never _needed_ to pronounce it, but it's actually quite disturbing
not being able to sound it in my head like with other words.
More on-topic, if we're using hashes for the announcer's bid, why not just go
the whole way and make _everyone_ submit hashes of their bids, to be revealed
after the auction ends? That way, there's no need to place any trust in the
announcer at all.
I do have my own reservations about using hashes at all, though, because this
particular context seems easier than many hashes to brute-force. There are only
a limited number of possible bids, and although you can obfuscate it a bit by
using different typographical conventions ("21", "21 coins", "21 Coins", "21
instances of Agora's official currency"), that seems easy for someone not
terribly familiar with computers/IT to mess up and accidentally reveal their
bid.
Apologies for the delay on the Treasuror report, by the way; it's taking a
while to sift through last month's reports to see who's due how many salaries,
because several offices were created or abolished and agora-official was
unavailable for part of the time. Hoping to have it up tomorrow (Wednesday).
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On July 3, 2018 10:58 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
>
>
> Obviously, it is ess-aych-ay-five-twelve.
>
> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018, 08:11 ATMunn iamingodsa...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On 7/1/2018 8:04 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote:
> > >
> > > > Also
> > > >
> > > > add in a new paragraph "Rules and Contracts notwithstanding, no
> > > >
> > > > Announcer may ever bid on an Auction they are Announcing".
> > >
> > > This is a massive disadvantage: It's unfair to ask an officer to
> > >
> > > completely stay out of a subgame, especially because people choose
> > >
> > > offices based on subgames they're interested in.
> > >
> > > My suggestion would be something like: In the auction-starting
> > >
> > > announcement, the announcer CAN include an SHA-512 hash of eir
> > >
> > > bid. Such a bid cannot be changed and MUST be reported with the
> > >
> > > auction results.
> > >
> > > Wait, an SHA-512 hash? Meaning you pronounce each letter instead of
> > >
> > > just saying "sha five twelve"?
> >
> > Anyways, acronym pronunciations aside, I agree with everything you said
> >
> > here.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Feasible Victory & Better Auctions
Obviously, it is ess-aych-ay-five-twelve. On Tue, Jul 3, 2018, 08:11 ATMunn wrote: > > On 7/1/2018 8:04 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote: > >> Also > >> add in a new paragraph "Rules and Contracts notwithstanding, no > >> Announcer may ever bid on an Auction they are Announcing". > > > > This is a massive disadvantage: It's unfair to ask an officer to > > completely stay out of a subgame, especially because people choose > > offices based on subgames they're interested in. > > > > My suggestion would be something like: In the auction-starting > > announcement, the announcer CAN include an SHA-512 hash of eir > > bid. Such a bid cannot be changed and MUST be reported with the > > auction results. > Wait, *an* SHA-512 hash? Meaning you pronounce each letter instead of > just saying "sha five twelve"? > > Anyways, acronym pronunciations aside, I agree with everything you said > here. >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Feasible Victory & Better Auctions
On Tue, 3 Jul 2018, ATMunn wrote: > On 7/1/2018 8:04 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote: > > > Also > > > add in a new paragraph "Rules and Contracts notwithstanding, no > > > Announcer may ever bid on an Auction they are Announcing". > > > > This is a massive disadvantage: It's unfair to ask an officer to > > completely stay out of a subgame, especially because people choose > > offices based on subgames they're interested in. > > > > My suggestion would be something like: In the auction-starting > > announcement, the announcer CAN include an SHA-512 hash of eir > > bid. Such a bid cannot be changed and MUST be reported with the > > auction results. > Wait, *an* SHA-512 hash? Meaning you pronounce each letter instead of just > saying "sha five twelve"? lol I don't really work with computer scientists/IT and have never heard it out loud, and working for the government I tend to sound-out acronyms by letter in my head by default unless it's very clearly a word.
Re: DIS: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8053-8057 (fwd)
Yes, I received all three copies.
On 7/1/2018 3:53 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
AND: just for some final ambiguity correction, since the below was the
first message sent to OFF to my knowledge since omd fixed things, if
the below message wasn't sent via OFF, I resolve the proposals as
indicated. This is forwarded to both BUS and DIS, so if all agoranomic
fora are working for you, you should get 3 copies (with apologies!)
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2018 12:50:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: Kerim Aydin
Reply-To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org
To: Agora Official
Subject: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8053-8057
Long Preamble:
All of the *attempted* votes on proposals 8053-8057 would evaluate to
FOR if they succeeded, except for a couple of (unambiguous) PRESENTs.
There were enough unambiguous votes to meet quorum. R208 requires that
the "tally" of a decision be correct in order to resolve the decision,
but there's no requirement to list voters, either in R208 or in R2034.
In the context of no votes AGAINST, these votes unambiguously fit under
the R955 result of (F>0 and A=0)=ADOPTED. Therefore I believe that if I
report (F>0, A=0, and Quroum=met) I have correctly reported the tally,
even if some indicated votes that don't change that tally are
questionable.
Note, importantly, that for figuring out *future* quorum, nothing about
the number of voters self-ratifies, if it doesn't affect the resolved
outcome, so CFJs can be phrased to question quorum without blocking
self-ratification of the proposals taking effect (and the existing CFJs
already take care of that, even if their judgements are changed).
If someone really wants to question this philosophically, it would be
great if any CFJ were called after the results self-ratify, or phrased
so as not to stop the self-ratification, as no CFJ outcome would alter
the final results, and the alternative is either uncertainty as to
whether these proposals took effect, delaying the assessment when
pressing things like tournaments are affected, or me submitting multiple
voting reports for every possible combo.
Right then.
I resolve the Agoran Decisions to adopt Proposals 8053-8057 as follows.
Quorum is 3 for all of these proposals. FOR voters in parentheses are
uncertain votes, which may be FOR, PRESENT, or failed, but this
uncertainty does not affect the indicated final tally.
Proposal 8053
FOR: Murphy, Aris, V.J. Rada, twg, PSS, ATMunn, (Trigon, Corona)
AGAINST:
PRESENT:
Tally: (F>0, A=0, met quorum)
Result: ADOPTED
Proposal 8054
FOR: Aris, V.J. Rada, twg, PSS, ATMunn, (Trigon, Corona)
AGAINST:
PRESENT: Murphy
Tally: (F>0, A=0, met quorum)
Result: ADOPTED
Proposal 8055
FOR: Aris, V.J. Rada, twg, PSS, ATMunn (Trigon, Corona)
AGAINST:
PRESENT: Murphy
Tally: (F>0, A=0, met quorum)
Result: ADOPTED
Proposal 8056
FOR: Murphy, Aris, V.J. Rada, twg, PSS, ATMunn (Trigon, Corona)
AGAINST:
PRESENT:
Tally: (F>0, A=0, met quorum)
Result: ADOPTED
Proposal 8057
FOR: Murphy, Aris, V.J. Rada, twg, PSS, ATMunn (Trigon, Corona)
AGAINST:
PRESENT:
Tally: (F>0, A=0, met quorum)
Result: ADOPTED
TEXT, TITLE, AI, and AUTHORSHIP of adopted proposals
//
ID: 8053
Title: patch patch patch
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: G.
Co-authors: Aris
Amend the rule defining welcome packages by adding as a new item,
appropriately numbered, at the end of the list "5 incense".
Create 5 incense in the possession of each player who received a
welcome package since April 28, 2018.
//
ID: 8054
Title: Minimalist Contracts v2
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Aris
Co-authors: G., V.J. Rada
Lines beginning with hashmarks ("#") and comments in square brackets ("[]")
have no effect on the behavior of this proposal. They are not part of any rules
created or amended herein, and may be considered for all game purposes to
have been removed before its resolution.
[This proposal saves allowing contracts to control or auction assets until we
decide to allow them to be persons, which is its own can of worms.]
# 1 Repeal
Destroy all contracts.
Repeal rules 2524, 2526, 2520, 2525, 2522, 2523, 2521, 2527, and 2517, in
that order.
In rule 2545 "Auctions", delete the text "or contract"
In rule 2547 "The Auctioneer", delete the text "or contracts",
change the last comma in the last sentence of the second paragraph
to a period, deleting the all parts of the sentence beyond it, and delete
the last paragraph.
In rule 2548 "The Auction Announcer" delete the text "or contract" and
the last sentence.
In rule 2549 "Auction Initiation", delete all instances of the text
"or contract"
In rule 2550 "Bidding", replace the last comma with a full stop and
delete all text after it, and delete all instances of the text "or
contract"
In rule 2483 "Economics", delete the text "contracts,"
In rule 1994 "Ownership of Land",
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Feasible Victory & Better Auctions
There are plenty of hashers online. You can just google "sha hash online" or something like that and there will be a bunch to choose from. Just put in the original text and they should spit out the hash at you, which you can then copy and paste. On 7/1/2018 8:15 PM, Rebecca wrote: I guess the announcer can't privately email anyone before the auction because they could clearly use such information. I would prefer a non SHA system though for reasons of agoran technical agnosticism/i don't know how to use technlogy. On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:14 AM, Rebecca wrote: very good call. On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:11 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Oh, and on the flip side, better make it a crime for the announcer to reveal bids to anyone before the auction is over! On Sun, 1 Jul 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote: Also add in a new paragraph "Rules and Contracts notwithstanding, no Announcer may ever bid on an Auction they are Announcing". This is a massive disadvantage: It's unfair to ask an officer to completely stay out of a subgame, especially because people choose offices based on subgames they're interested in. My suggestion would be something like: In the auction-starting announcement, the announcer CAN include an SHA-512 hash of eir bid. Such a bid cannot be changed and MUST be reported with the auction results. Failing to correctly and fully relate the results of an Auction as an Auction announcer is the Class-9 Crime of Auction Obfuscation, and Auction announcers SHALL NOT so fail". So, um... any honest mistake and it's a class-9 crime? -- From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Feasible Victory & Better Auctions
I'd stick to one defined thing such as the SHA hash. I get that just saying "reasonably verifiable method" allows people to be creative, but really what we need is not creativity, it's verifiability. (is that a word?) People can push the limits of "reasonably verifiable", which could become a hassle to check each method (or even to have to call a CFJ) to make sure it works. I'd stick to one method that everyone has to use and everyone can easily verify. On 7/1/2018 8:22 PM, Rebecca wrote: I guess instead of SHA hash we could make it "reasonably verifiable method" which could include that or eg, posting a private youtube video of yourself bidding etc. On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:20 AM, Rebecca wrote: Burden of proof is with the bidder to prove it is wrong but criminal penalty is higher: class 9 crime v general "no faking". On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:15 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Hmm, it's a problem. If you're worried that emails can't be proven, you have to be equally worried that a bidder may lie versus the announcer lying. If we get to the point that a bidder says "I sent you a bid" and the announcer says "no you didn't", where should the burden of proof be? (As an aside, we had Secret Voting before and and over many votes I don't remember anything that wasn't resolved right away as an honest mistake). On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote: yes because it's the one case where lying is perfectly doable and intentional lying could almost never be distinguished by anyone. class 9 isn't even huge. it's one above intending to ratify without objection incorrect information. fair point on the first one. I would have simplicity reign and say they MUST privately email the speaker, or prime minister, or someone else, who can verify if the person has lied after they report. On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:04 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote: Also add in a new paragraph "Rules and Contracts notwithstanding, no Announcer may ever bid on an Auction they are Announcing". This is a massive disadvantage: It's unfair to ask an officer to completely stay out of a subgame, especially because people choose offices based on subgames they're interested in. My suggestion would be something like: In the auction-starting announcement, the announcer CAN include an SHA-512 hash of eir bid. Such a bid cannot be changed and MUST be reported with the auction results. Failing to correctly and fully relate the results of an Auction as an Auction announcer is the Class-9 Crime of Auction Obfuscation, and Auction announcers SHALL NOT so fail". So, um... any honest mistake and it's a class-9 crime? -- From V.J. Rada -- From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Feasible Victory & Better Auctions
On 7/1/2018 8:04 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote: Also add in a new paragraph "Rules and Contracts notwithstanding, no Announcer may ever bid on an Auction they are Announcing". This is a massive disadvantage: It's unfair to ask an officer to completely stay out of a subgame, especially because people choose offices based on subgames they're interested in. My suggestion would be something like: In the auction-starting announcement, the announcer CAN include an SHA-512 hash of eir bid. Such a bid cannot be changed and MUST be reported with the auction results. Wait, *an* SHA-512 hash? Meaning you pronounce each letter instead of just saying "sha five twelve"? Anyways, acronym pronunciations aside, I agree with everything you said here.
