On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 7:25 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 11:07 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> That's rather more rule-heavy, so not a bad fit. I think I'll try
>> writing up a Werewolf contest, though (anyone want to take over Enigma?)
>>
> Jus
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 11:07 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's rather more rule-heavy, so not a bad fit. I think I'll try
> writing up a Werewolf contest, though (anyone want to take over Enigma?)
>
Just make it a PRS member contest.
BobTHJ
root wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 9:16 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Goethe wrote:
>>
>>> Or, we could bring back mafia, that was nice.
>> WANT. (They've been doing the Werewolf variety at the local gaming
>> conventions for a year or two now.)
>
> Or how about a round of "Bang
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 9:16 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Goethe wrote:
>
>> Or, we could bring back mafia, that was nice.
>
> WANT. (They've been doing the Werewolf variety at the local gaming
> conventions for a year or two now.)
Or how about a round of "Bang!"?
-root
Goethe wrote:
> Or, we could bring back mafia, that was nice.
WANT. (They've been doing the Werewolf variety at the local gaming
conventions for a year or two now.)
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>How confident are we that MD5 doesn't have collisions between
>"FOR".$somehash and "AGAINST".$someotherhash?
It does inherently have collisions, and there's a known attack that has
demonstrated actual instances of collision (though not with meaningful
strings yet). The next
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 4:52 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The fact is that no matter what seed you
> choose, it's possibe to find a seed for the opposite vote that
> collides with it, so such a rule would simply require us to invalidate
> all votes.
I think if we limited seeds to a r
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008, Quazie wrote:
> ooh, i miss the card games. Didn't you end up winning the last one by
> usinga card to draw another card, and then that card allowed you to
> undo your last card played?
Yah, that was the first win-by-paradox.
The contest I was talking about was not those
2008/6/12 Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Ah.
>
> Is MD5 really that easy to brute-force? hmm...
>
> How about if each ballot also includes a proof-of-work? This should
> make searching for collisions harder.
>
> That is, instead of random noise as your salt, include the MD5 hash
> of a string be
On Thursday 12 June 2008 3:52:35 Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Ben Caplan wrote:
> > >
> > "FOR /*8947521705932789*/"
> > ("AGAINST /*8947521705932789*/" hashes to .)
>
> That doesn't prove anything.
>
> Of course, all this indicates to me is that we should u
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 3:00 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You know... to fake a vote in this manner (have your collision be not
> meaningless junk but a desired value), you would need a pretty amazing
> supercomputer. I don't think most Agorans have those to play with.
I don't know the
2008/6/12 comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Compromise on SHA-1?
>
Probably.
Or... SHA-512. It's no harder to implement than SHA-1 (mostly), it is
a lot slower, but meh.
Note that 2ch BBSs get quite well with a short substring of a crypt()
call! Though, they can be cracked in about a week. Their defe
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 4:52 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Of course, all this indicates to me is that we should use something
> stronger than MD5 for this.
You know... to fake a vote in this manner (have your collision be not
meaningless junk but a desired value), you would need a pr
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We can just legislate that if you use a colliding hash, your vote
> doesn't count. Thus the reveal would look like {
> >
> "FOR /*8947521705932789*/"
> ("AGAINST /*8947521705932789*/" hashes to .)
> }
That doe
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 1:34 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
>> Now, to discourage private collaboration ("I'll vote FOR, you vote
>> AGAINST.")
>
> Instead of discouraging, how about setting up a game where it's beneficial
> to lie and backst
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
> Now, to discourage private collaboration ("I'll vote FOR, you vote
> AGAINST.")
Instead of discouraging, how about setting up a game where it's beneficial
to lie and backstab during private negotiations, Diplomacy-style (eg. points
that make backstabs w
On Thursday 12 June 2008 3:14:10 Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Ben Caplan
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > B: I vote on it with md5 hash .
> >
> > (The string hashed as would have to include cryptographic salt:
> > rather than "FOR", it would be "FOR /*8947521705932789*/
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Ben Caplan
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> B: I vote on it with md5 hash .
>>
>> (The string hashed as would have to include cryptographic salt:
>> rather than "FOR", it would be "FOR /*89
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> B: I vote on it with md5 hash .
>
> (The string hashed as would have to include cryptographic salt:
> rather than "FOR", it would be "FOR /*8947521705932789*/".)
How confident are we that MD5 doesn't have collisions between
On Wednesday 11 June 2008 8:11:33 Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2008, Nick Vanderweit wrote:
> > But then people would know how many FOR and AGAINST votes there had
> > been, and would simply use that to judge how they would vote.
>
> That's ok. Games to play:
>-So who votes first?
>
2008/6/12 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Can we just stick to contested proposals plz?
>
>
No. :-P
ehird
Goethe wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2008, Nick Vanderweit wrote:
>> But then people would know how many FOR and AGAINST votes there had
>> been, and would simply use that to judge how they would vote.
>
> That's ok. Games to play:
>-So who votes first?
>-What if you vote as a decoy and change
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008, Nick Vanderweit wrote:
> But then people would know how many FOR and AGAINST votes there had
> been, and would simply use that to judge how they would vote.
That's ok. Games to play:
-So who votes first?
-What if you vote as a decoy and change your vote at the last min
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 8:20 AM, Elliott Hird
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> You couldn't talk about it, in public or private (that's the
>>> unenforcabl
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 8:20 AM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You couldn't talk about it, in public or private (that's the
>> unenforcable part), and all votes must be sent privately by email to ?
>> (I think t
2008/6/11 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Unless there's some way to double-blind it, that's a lot of power for
> the assessor (assessor conspirator is what scammed it previously).
> -Goethe
A double blind proposal system both makes no sense at all and sounds
totally awesome.
ehird
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> Perhaps we should try Insaner proposals: all of the above, plus the
> proposal's title, text, author and AI are secret as well.
Unless there's some way to double-blind it, that's a lot of power for
the assessor (assessor conspirator is what scammed it previ
2008/6/11 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Perhaps we should try Insaner proposals: all of the above, plus the
> proposal's title, text, author and AI are secret as well.
>
> -root
>
Very yes.
ehird
2008/6/11 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The ID number should be secret too, and should be assigned after those
> given to the other proposals in the same batch, so only the Promoter
> knows just how many Insaner proposals are being voted on until the
> next batch is sent out.
>
This would
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 3:13 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Perhaps we should try Insaner proposals: all of the above, plus the
> proposal's title, text, author and AI are secret as well.
The ID number should be secret too, and should be assigned after those
given to the other proposal
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 8:20 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You couldn't talk about it, in public or private (that's the
> unenforcable part), and all votes must be sent privately by email to ?
> (I think the notary).
The Assessor.
> If you proposed an insane proposal which got no
Nevermind. There was already a thread on that.
avpx
On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Nick Vanderweit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Could someone explain this to me? I vaguely recall something about a
> former rule that made discussion of voting on these things illegal,
> but that rule no longer exi
2008/6/8 Nick Vanderweit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Could someone explain this to me? I vaguely recall something about a
> former rule that made discussion of voting on these things illegal,
> but that rule no longer exists, right?
>
> avpx
Insane proposal: proposal ALL IN UPPERCASE
You couldn't talk
Could someone explain this to me? I vaguely recall something about a
former rule that made discussion of voting on these things illegal,
but that rule no longer exists, right?
avpx
2008/6/6 Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I PROPOSE THE FOLLOWING PROPOSAL (TITLE: "AGORA") (AI=1, II=1):
> {{{
>
On Sat, 7 Jun 2008, comex wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 3:34 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 6 Jun 2008, comex wrote:
>>> Who wants to propose bringing insane proposals back?
>>
>> Weird tactical voting promotion of any/all kinds... good. Ones that
>> depend on making
On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 3:34 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 6 Jun 2008, comex wrote:
>> Who wants to propose bringing insane proposals back?
>
> Weird tactical voting promotion of any/all kinds... good. Ones that
> depend on making it illegal to discuss votes even in private
On Fri, 6 Jun 2008, comex wrote:
> Who wants to propose bringing insane proposals back?
Weird tactical voting promotion of any/all kinds... good. Ones that
depend on making it illegal to discuss votes even in private...
unenforceably unworkable (previously demonstrated). -Goethe
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 5:17 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 5:14 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 7:12 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> You're about 6 years too late for this proposal to be insane.
>>
>> Who wants to propos
2008/6/7 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Well, first we'd have to bring sane proposals back, since it just
> wouldn't be the same without the play on words. But the way sane
> proposals worked back then is pretty much exactly the way regular
> democratic proposals work now. So I think we're stuc
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 5:14 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 7:12 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You're about 6 years too late for this proposal to be insane.
>
> Who wants to propose bringing insane proposals back?
Well, first we'd have to bring sane prop
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 7:12 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You're about 6 years too late for this proposal to be insane.
Who wants to propose bringing insane proposals back?
2008/6/6 Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I PROPOSE THE FOLLOWING PROPOSAL (TITLE: "AGORA") (AI=1, II=1):
> {{{
> AGORA AGORA AGORA AGORA AGORA AGORA AGORA.
>
> AGORA AGORA AGORA AGORA AGORA AGORA AGORA AGORA
> AGORA AGORA AGORA.
>
> AGORA AGORA AGORA AGORA AGORA AGORA AGORA AGORA AGORA.
> }}}
>
On 6/6/08, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I PROPOSE THE FOLLOWING PROPOSAL (TITLE: "AGORA") (AI=1, II=1):
Ahh, nostalgia...
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
43 matches
Mail list logo
