Edward Murphy via agora-discussion [2023-03-05 13:26]:
> juan wrote:
>
> > Here's the new version:
> >
> > {
> > A Fingerprint for a document (the Plaintext) is a document that could
> > not have been reasonably created without knowledge of the Plaintext, and
> > which is related to the Plaintext in such a way that one could not
> > reasonably produce another document related to that Fingerprint in the
> > same way.
> >
> > Where the rules define an action that a person CAN perform "by
> > commitment" to a particular kind of document, that person performs
> > that action by performing it by announcement while, in the same
> > message, also publishing a what is purportedly a Fingerprint for a
> > document of that kind.
> > }
>
> I think this needs at least a write-up for the second half of the
> process, e.g.
>
> Where the rules define an action (the Pitch) that a person CAN
> perform "by fulfillment" to a particular kind of document, that
> person performs that action by performing it by announcement
> while, in the same message, also publishing a document of that
> kind, specifying an action (the Wind-Up) that e previously
> performed by commitment to that kind of document, and specifying
> enough information to verify that the Wind-Up's Fingerprint
> corresponds to the Pitch's document. The Wind-Up is thereby
> fulfilled. A person CANNOT perform a Pitch by specifying a Wind-Up
> that was previously fulfilled.
Yeah, that's one way to do it. But I'd rather leave it to the
authorizing rule to define when the action is performed. I.e., it could
say that a player “prepares to perform X” by commitment, and than CAN
“perform X” if e has preprared for it at least N days ago. Or even, the
rule would say a player performs something by commitment, but then MUST
publish the Plaintext when some conditions are met (so as to confirm the
previous action was warrented), and maybe punish or even revert the
effects if it should be the case.
--
juan
