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
<agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> 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
