Side note to my side note: I misunderstood Gaelan's note. The hash itself is completely random, I misread and though it was a hash /of/ a value between 0 and 2^64-1 (a 64-bit value). As such, brute forcing with all the world's ASICs would be on the order of 10^60 seconds, or 10^50 centuries.
On 8/13/20 10:57 PM, shelvacu via agora-business wrote: > Argument for FALSE: > > Rule 1742 says that > > "The portion of a contract's provisions that can be interpreted with > reference only to information that is either publicly or generally > available are known as its body; the remainder of the provisions are > known as the annex." > > and > > "A party to a contract CAN perform any of the following actions as > explicitly and unambiguously permitted by the contract's *body*." > > Because the integer x specified in the contract is information that is > not publicly or generally available, all portions that depend on it are > an "annex". Thus, revoking 5 coins was not effective because no part of > the contract's body allowed it. > > While the contract states that "The Eligible Revocation can be > calculated as follows", that is simply not true. What is provided is a > way to /verify/ the Eligible Revocation. While theoretically 'x' could > be found via brute force has exactly one correct value, the process of > finding that integer would require resources that are certainly not > publicly or generally available. > > > Side note: I was going to add "... and does not exist on this earth" in > reference to what resources would be required, but I remembered that > bitcoin exists, and because of it so do large amounts of heavily > optimized ASICs that compute SHA256. I decided to do the calculation to > check. https://www.blockchain.com/charts/hash-rate shows the average > hashrate of the bitcoin network peaked at 126.941 petahashes/s (that's > right, /peta-/). At that rate (that is, if everyone in the world > currently running a bitcoin miner instead switched to finding Gaelan's > number), it would take */145 seconds! /*That's it! > > On 8/13/20 8:15 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-business 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
