msh210 via agora-discussion [2026-06-22 08:50]: > Mischief wrote, in part: > > > how is someone supposed to announce e's earned the bounty if the > > > required characteristics are hashed? Unless of course the hash > > > chosen is easy to break, like, I dunno, ROT-0. > > <snip> > > > > Presumably the Benefactor would have revealed the underlying text or > > hints about it to some subset of players. > > Suppose I want to offer player A and player B a bounty for a quest. I > tell them the task and, optionally, the reward, and they go to it (or > don't). I can even codify it in a promise, which everyone can see. > What's the benefit of hashing it? Sounds like the only benefit of > hashing it is so to avoid uninvited questors -- but one can simply > limit the bounty to specific persons if e wants to. > > I feel like I'm still missing something.
I don't now eir intentions with the contract, but from what I gather, this is doing more than a promise would. If the promise was plaintext, everyone in the game would know the quest, and that changes the game dynamics. If the Benefactor wants the quest to be secret, they would need to commit to it somehow, and the most obvious way to codify that is a contract (since commitment is a mechanism used by rules). Additionally, it would be pretty convoluted (if possible) to impose a “SHALL” commitment on revealing the plaintext. I guess it could be done with a combination of promises and pledges, but a contract seems more straightforward. In summary, the point seems to be: 1. Secrecy on the quest. 2. Imposing the obligation of revealing the plaintext. 3. Aesthetics. -- juan
