On 3/5/2019 6:14 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
I respond to the CoE by citing the CFJ.
(I swear I remember there being a proto floating around at some point to
change it so that just the existence of a relevant open CFJ would block
self-ratification
On Tue, 5 Mar 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
I respond to the CoE by citing the CFJ.
(I swear I remember there being a proto floating around at some point to
change it so that just the existence of a relevant open CFJ would block
self-ratification, instead of having to go through this rigmaro
Oh don't worry about me, it's the only vaguely controversial thing that's
happened so far this week so it's pretty easy to keep track of in my head. If
it was actually too confusing I'd be docking karma from you myself. :P
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 9:06 PM
Seems like the solution here is to define (in a rule) “by announcement,
stating…” as requiring the “stating” bit to be part of the public message.
Gaelan
> On Mar 5, 2019, at 12:48 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> CFJ, barring twg: G. has earned 5 coins for the Herald's Report of
> 17-Feb-2019.
>
> On Mar 5, 2019, at 1:03 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> Yes, I don't see how this is any different from "stating it to yourself".
> Your publication of the hash (if it even is a hash - I see no evidence that
> it's not just a random string of hexadecimal digits) didn't meaningfully
> com
In that message, you didn’t state a number of coins; you stated a hash. Stating
a hash is different from stating that-which-was-hashed, I think, at least when
the hash cannot readily be decrypted by those to whom the statement is
directed.
If you said the hash out loud to yourself, or “stated
6 matches
Mail list logo
