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 <edwardostra...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: >> >> >> 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 aside, we had Secret Voting before and >> and over many votes I don't remember anything that wasn't resolved >> right away as an honest mistake). >> >> On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote: >>> 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 >>> they MUST privately email the speaker, or prime minister, or someone >>> else, who can verify if the person has lied after they report. >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:04 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> 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 of a subgame, especially because people choose >>> > offices based on subgames they're interested in. >>> > >>> > My suggestion would be something like: In the auction-starting >>> > announcement, the announcer CAN include an SHA-512 hash of eir >>> > bid. Such a bid cannot be changed and MUST be reported with the >>> > auction results. >>> > >>> >> Failing to correctly and fully relate the results of an Auction as an >>> >> Auction announcer is the Class-9 Crime of Auction Obfuscation, and >>> >> Auction announcers SHALL NOT so fail". >>> > >>> > So, um... any honest mistake and it's a class-9 crime? >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> From V.J. Rada >>> >> > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada -- >From V.J. Rada
