On Wed, 2014-11-19 at 10:30 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
There's been quite a bit of effort in this to shut down possible scams
pre-emptively; in particular, I've tried my best to prevent anything
similar to Fool's attempted scam, and any scams along the
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
Anyway, the upshot of all this is that despite looking reasonable, the
current definition of randomness simply doesn't work.
Which definition? The non-existent one currently not in the rules,
or one I proposed?
I'll write a longer post on the cases, but
On Mon, 2014-12-01 at 14:36 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
Anyway, the upshot of all this is that despite looking reasonable, the
current definition of randomness simply doesn't work.
Which definition? The non-existent one currently not in the rules,
or
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
On Mon, 2014-12-01 at 14:36 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
Anyway, the upshot of all this is that despite looking reasonable, the
current definition of randomness simply doesn't work.
Which definition? The
On Mon, 2014-12-01 at 15:08 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
This is orthogonal to whether we can *prove* that a roll was fair
versus having being interfered with (by rejecting certain outcomes,
which doesn't fit my definition of fair), or what happens with delays
(which is why I proposed a fix -
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
As for your proto, one thing I notice is that it defers to the Courts as
to what is considered sufficiently random. I'd treat this as a dubious
course of action even with the old, fair CFJ system. Our current
intentionally biased system is probably a
Ok, the list. Unfair is shorthand for wrong probability.
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
A. An officer selects a random result, then communicates it to
Agora.
ok
B. An officer selects two random results, then communicates one to
Agora.
ok if one chosen is
In general, I'd tend to agree with G..
- No *platonic* failures need apply unless a truly verifiable form of
randomness is used; in lieu of that, you can always cheat just by
lying about a roll, so bad randomness would always be a SHALL
violation.
- The basic requirement is that you SHALL make a
8 matches
Mail list logo
