Janet Cobb via agora-discussion [2023-06-05 16:48]: > On 6/5/23 16:45, juan via agora-discussion wrote: > > No, it's not. It's a blanket assertion that “everything” is as it > > would have been. We don't know that. Maybe the different bytes stored on > > the server changed the CPU heat emission just enough so that, weeks later, > > there was a hurricane across the globe, which temporarily disconnected > > one of the players that then didn't perform a specific action at a s > > pecific time. > > > > Is this ridiculous? Yes. But then again: that is what is written. > > > None of that is "gamestate", and by this logic, all ratification is broken.
It's not gamestate, but the gamestate would be different in that situation. Ratification is not broken because it specifically makes it so the assertions made in a document are true. Ratification of blanket assertions is broken. > > To be clear, I'm not worried about that. I'm not worried about the state > > not being what we think it is. But to make a fuss about it, we should > > do it right. If you want to converge game-state, ratify specifically the > > information that you want to ratify. And at that: stamp holdings already > > ratified. Contracts as well. Is there something that did not ratify? > > One concern is that stamp reports might not have enough information to > even be "purported" stamp reports. Saying "Alice has 2 Bob stamps." > potentially isn't enough to fulfill the duty to report if every Bob > stamp is different. Then ratify a stamp report as part of the proposal. > There have also been (purported) stamp wins, which do not ratify. Ratify that. -- juan
