On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ok, but entering into the spirit of this argument, if one contract > passes a value "valid FOR vote iff secret info = true" to another contract, > then even *if* the conditional involves uncertainty in the Agoran > gamestate, the receiving contract (and its internal state) just sees "vote > iff Conditional" where conditionals either aren't specifically permitted > by the contract, or are permitted, but in this case rely on unavailable > information. So why (from internal operation of werewolf) is the contract > not able to simply conclude "this conditional is invalid."?
The receiving contract is intended to receive either "vote FOR" (unconditionally) or nothing at all. Either because the contract does or doesn't allow the AFO to act-on-behalf in the first place, or because the contract doesn't exist. Also, I vote for Zefram.
