On 8/17/2020 10:12 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via
agora-discussion wrote:
> I imagine that this defeats the purpose, but G. or Jason, if you could
> disclose the hashed document, that would be very much appreciated.
>
>> On Aug 17, 2020, at 11:39, Jason Cobb via agora-business
>> <agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 8/3/20 7:56 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote:
>>> I make/consent to the following contract 'Trust Me':
>>>
>>> {
>>> 1. Only G. CAN join this contract.
>>>
>>> 2. G. CAN terminate this contract by announcement;
>>>
>>> 3. G. SHALL, within one week, perform at least one of the actions
>>> described in a document that G. has previously published that has the
>>> SHA-256 hash:
>>> f7609fa40a997e8f7533eb55e0c74b35800c937c8300aa2f70d4feb320247214
>>> }
>>
>>
>> I point my finger at G. for failure to abide by the above contract.
>>
>> --
>> Jason Cobb
>>
(Purposefully to discussion)
I'm interested in learning about the "preponderance of evidence" standard
with reference to:
1. If I made no statement;
2. If I made a public statement "under penalty of no faking" that I had
fulfilled the contract, but gave no further details;
3. To what extent a finger-point like Jason's constitutes "faking" (i.e.
an allegation suggests evidence, and if Jason has no evidence, e is
misleading the referee to suggest that the contract is broken).
-G.
