Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500
On 3/5/2019 6:14 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: On Tue, 5 Mar 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: I respond to the CoE by citing the CFJ. (I swear I remember there being a proto floating around at some point to change it so that just the existence of a relevant open CFJ would block self-ratification, instead of having to go through this rigmarole. Wonder what happened to that.) Maybe let a CoE include a connected CFJ, in which case a response might not be mandatory. It's already there, no CoE nor any recordkeepor response required(R2201): A doubt is an explicit public challenge via [...] 1. An inquiry case (I would have had to explicitly identify the Report's error in the CFJ, which I didn't do - sorry about that!)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500
On Tue, 5 Mar 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: I respond to the CoE by citing the CFJ. (I swear I remember there being a proto floating around at some point to change it so that just the existence of a relevant open CFJ would block self-ratification, instead of having to go through this rigmarole. Wonder what happened to that.) Maybe let a CoE include a connected CFJ, in which case a response might not be mandatory. Without such an explicit connection, such a clause could make a report accidentally not self-ratify because of a CFJ that wasn't even intended (or stated) to be relevant to it, which seems to me like a bad idea. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500
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 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.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500
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 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 wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Mar 5, 2019, at 1:03 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey 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. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500
> On Mar 5, 2019, at 1:03 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey 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.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500
In that message, you didn’t state a number of coins; you stated a hash. Stating a hash is different from stating that-which-was-hashed, I think, at least when the hash cannot readily be decrypted by those to whom the statement is directed. If you said the hash out loud to yourself, or “stated” the underlying text to the computer performing the hashing algorithm, then I think that yields a DISMISS for the same reasons as 3714, at least until you give us information sufficient to decrypt. > On Mar 5, 2019, at 12:41 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > CoE on coin balances: As per the CFJ 3714 judgement, proof that I stated > the number of coins earned for my last-but-one Herald's Report (in a timely > manner for the reward) is found here: > > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/040091.html > > [Note: I'm not trying to be annoying about the quanging thing here - > I've been trying to write a general action-by-hash rule for a bit and want > to know if rules need changing wrt standards of evidence and revealing > info and whatnot]. > > >> On 3/5/2019 6:50 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: >> COIN BALANCES >> >> This section self-ratifies.
