Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CfJ][Contract][@Treasuror] Somewhat Annoying Experiment
On 2020-08-14 05:36, Byron Krane via agora-discussion wrote: 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 Hi Bayushi. Would you like me to list you as a Watcher in the Registrar weekly reports? The DIS: gets added automatically by the mailing list software. -- Falsifian
DIS: Re: BUS: [CfJ][Contract][@Treasuror] Somewhat Annoying Experiment
> On Aug 13, 2020, at 10:57 PM, shelvacu via agora-business > wrote: > > Because the integer x specified in the contract is information that is > not publicly or generally available, all portions that depend on it are > an "annex". Thus, revoking 5 coins was not effective because no part of > the contract's body allowed it. > > While the contract states that "The Eligible Revocation can be > calculated as follows", that is simply not true. What is provided is a > way to /verify/ the Eligible Revocation. While theoretically 'x' could > be found via brute force has exactly one correct value, the process of > finding that integer would require resources that are certainly not > publicly or generally available. The Eligible Revocation can be determined from publicly available information (by brute force, as you mentioned). While you're certainly correct that the resources needed to do so aren't generally available (or available on this earth, as you mentioned in your side-note to your side-note), I'm not sure the rules impose any restriction on resources required for interpretation, only information required to do so. As shel mentioned, my initial note was slightly incorrect. I said "random 64-bit value", but meant "random 256-bit value" (or 64 characters of random hex). It's not a hash of a random value; the required hash itself *is* a random value. Gaelan
DIS: Re: BUS: [CfJ][Contract][@Treasuror] Somewhat Annoying Experiment
Side note to my side note: I misunderstood Gaelan's note. The hash
itself is completely random, I misread and though it was a hash /of/ a
value between 0 and 2^64-1 (a 64-bit value). As such, brute forcing with
all the world's ASICs would be on the order of 10^60 seconds, or 10^50
centuries.
On 8/13/20 10:57 PM, shelvacu via agora-business wrote:
> Argument for FALSE:
>
> Rule 1742 says that
>
> "The portion of a contract's provisions that can be interpreted with
> reference only to information that is either publicly or generally
> available are known as its body; the remainder of the provisions are
> known as the annex."
>
> and
>
> "A party to a contract CAN perform any of the following actions as
> explicitly and unambiguously permitted by the contract's *body*."
>
> Because the integer x specified in the contract is information that is
> not publicly or generally available, all portions that depend on it are
> an "annex". Thus, revoking 5 coins was not effective because no part of
> the contract's body allowed it.
>
> While the contract states that "The Eligible Revocation can be
> calculated as follows", that is simply not true. What is provided is a
> way to /verify/ the Eligible Revocation. While theoretically 'x' could
> be found via brute force has exactly one correct value, the process of
> finding that integer would require resources that are certainly not
> publicly or generally available.
>
>
> Side note: I was going to add "... and does not exist on this earth" in
> reference to what resources would be required, but I remembered that
> bitcoin exists, and because of it so do large amounts of heavily
> optimized ASICs that compute SHA256. I decided to do the calculation to
> check. https://www.blockchain.com/charts/hash-rate shows the average
> hashrate of the bitcoin network peaked at 126.941 petahashes/s (that's
> right, /peta-/). At that rate (that is, if everyone in the world
> currently running a bitcoin miner instead switched to finding Gaelan's
> number), it would take */145 seconds! /*That's it!
>
> On 8/13/20 8:15 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: [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
