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
Several comments:
For the sake of consistency with the exiting ruleset, crimes should be
in the opposite order. So "Auction announcers SHALL NOT fail to
correctly ...; doing so constitutes the Class-9 Crime of Auction
Obfuscation".
I would appreciate it if you added "willfully". You can't acciden
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
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 eve
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 i
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
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
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 bidde
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
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 o
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 h
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
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 disadva
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 Aucti
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
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 w
16 matches
Mail list logo
