Re: [s-d] [s-b] panic

["Craig Daniel" <teucer@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 1:35 AM, Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> teucer wrote:
>
>>> How about something like "can generally be understood by the other
>>> players without unreasonable effort"?
>>
>> Hm.
>>
>> I like it, for the most part. What I'm trying to do is find a way to
>> get all of the following test cases to resolve correctly:
>>
>> 1. I send out a contract defining itself as the
>> plaintext/translation/etc of a block of ciphertext. (The contract
>> should be invalid.)
>> 1'. I send out an encrypted file and define a contract as being the
>> contents thereof, a la Epimenides. (The contract should be invalid.)
>
> Variation A:  I send out a contract with an encoded section, and later
> post a reasonably simple decoding method (e.g. rot13, passworded zip)
> to s-b.
>
> Variation B:  As above, but the contract and the method are specified
> in the same message.
>
> Variation C:  As above, but the method is specified within the unencoded
> portion of the contract.
>
> These also apply to cases 2, 6, and 7.

Variation D: As above, but somebody else later reveals the method
rather than me.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss