On Thursday 12 June 2008 3:14:10 Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Ben Caplan
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > B: I vote on it with md5 hash <bar>.
> >
> > (The string hashed as <bar> would have to include cryptographic salt:
> > rather than "FOR", it would be "FOR /*8947521705932789*/".)
>
> How confident are we that MD5 doesn't have collisions between
> "FOR".$somehash and "AGAINST".$someotherhash?
> --
> Wooble
>
We can just legislate that if you use a colliding hash, your vote
doesn't count. Thus the reveal would look like {
> <bar>
"FOR /*8947521705932789*/"
("AGAINST /*8947521705932789*/" hashes to <baz>.)
}
We would also have to OBLIGATE voters to reveal their votes afterward.
("OH SH--! it's going to pass... better hide my FOR vote...")
On second thought, some players might prefer to accept judicial
smackdown than to risk the existence of the game. Better interpret
hidden votes as {
For the proposer:
If there are no visible FOR votes, FOR but you don't get gravy.
Otherwise, AGAINST.
For everyone else:
If there are no visible FOR votes, AGAINST. (Grant win.)
Otherwise, FOR but you don't get gravy. (Pass proposal.)
}
That should make burying votes a "worst-case scenario".
Pavitra
