On 07/17/2012 06:31 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Machiavelli wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> On Tue, 17 Jul 2012, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jul 2012, moonroof wrote:
> Cipher?
announcement, publish a Cypher for the classified parameter in
>>
Machiavelli wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jul 2012, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jul 2012, moonroof wrote:
Cipher?
announcement, publish a Cypher for the classified parameter in
I'd like to say that the 'y' was a clever agoran pun and not i
G. wrote:
The Rules may specify a date or event after which a particular
type of Cypher becomes Declassified; with a default of as soon as
possible after the Cypher is first published. As soon as possible
after a particular Cypher becomes declassified, its record
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>The Rules may specify a date or event after which a particular
>type of Cypher becomes Declassified; with a default of as soon as
>possible after the Cypher is first published. As soon as possible
>after a parti
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>up until the time the recordkeepor announces
>its Declassification.
I would just do "up until the time it becomes Declassified".
>
>The Rules may specify a date or event after which a particular
>type of Cypher
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2012, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Jul 2012, moonroof wrote:
>> > Cipher?
>>announcement, publish a Cypher for the classified parameter in
>
> I'd like to say that the 'y' was a clever agoran pun and not idiocy
> coup
On Tue, 17 Jul 2012, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2012, moonroof wrote:
> > Cipher?
>announcement, publish a Cypher for the classified parameter in
I'd like to say that the 'y' was a clever agoran pun and not idiocy
coupled with an overly-permissive spellchecker, but you know,
On Tue, 17 Jul 2012, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>then, for the purpose of determining the result of the attempted
>classified action, the cypher is interpreted as if its plaintext had
>been published in place of the cypher at the time the original action
>attempt was publ
On Tue, 17 Jul 2012, moonroof wrote:
> Cipher?
Good one. Ok, here's a re-write:
If the Rules define a specific, essential parameter for an
action as a Classified Parameter for the action, then a person
MAY, when otherwise attempting to perform the action by
announce
Cipher?
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2012, Sean Hunt wrote:
> > The rule specifying the secret should additionally specify the
> > encryption (I hate this word in this context, fwiw)
>
> I'm trying to give it a "spy/secrets" flavor rather than a techni
On Mon, 16 Jul 2012, Sean Hunt wrote:
> The rule specifying the secret should additionally specify the
> encryption (I hate this word in this context, fwiw)
I'm trying to give it a "spy/secrets" flavor rather than a technical
flavor (e.g. "hash"), though I know I'm using the term incorrectly.
Go
On Tue, 17 Jul 2012, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 11:32 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> >
> > Restrict it to casting votes?
> >
> It should be legal for non-rules defined actions as well. I could see
> this mechanism being useful for contracts/contests/promises/whatever
> form of binding
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 11:32 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>
> Restrict it to casting votes?
>
It should be legal for non-rules defined actions as well. I could see
this mechanism being useful for contracts/contests/promises/whatever
form of binding agreements exist presently.
BobTHJ
omd wrote:
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
then the encoding is interpreted as if its plaintext had been
published at the time the original encoding was published.
i think this is too vague - what if the plaintext is "I deregister"?
Restrict it to casting
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 6:09 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2012, omd wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Kerim Aydin
>>> wrote:
>>> > then the encoding is interpreted as if its plaintext had been
>>> > pub
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> The rule specifying the secret should additionally specify the
> encryption (I hate this word in this context, fwiw) method and the
> rule allowing secrets should define explicitly what sort of actions or
> information can be contained within. Fo
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 6:09 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2012, omd wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> > then the encoding is interpreted as if its plaintext had been
>> > published at the time the original encoding was published.
>>
>> i
On Mon, 16 Jul 2012, omd wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > then the encoding is interpreted as if its plaintext had been
> > published at the time the original encoding was published.
>
> i think this is too vague - what if the plaintext is "I deregis
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> then the encoding is interpreted as if its plaintext had been
> published at the time the original encoding was published.
i think this is too vague - what if the plaintext is "I deregister"?
It might be worth coming up with a general mechanism for Secret but
Confirmable information. Following drafty draft needs help:
The Rules can define a type of information as Classified.
To do so, the Rules must specify a date or event after which
that type of information beco
20 matches
Mail list logo
