[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Jim Bell... lives... on... in... Hollywood!

At 10:48 PM 1/7/98 -0800, Sergey Goldgaber wrote:
>On Thu, 1 Jan 1998, Kent Crispin wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 01, 1998 at 09:52:20PM +1100, Julian Assange wrote:
>> > 
>> > Anyone noticed this before?
>> No.  But there are two obvious differences between this and the Bell 
>> plan:  1) it's not anon; 2) you are explicitly barred from winning if 
>> you contribute in any way to the death.
>1 - Anonymity is technically feasable.
>2 - This requirement is a legal necessity.  Otherwise, the organization
>    may be seen as advocating murder.
>Obviously, if the "Death Pool" was fully anonymous, there would be
>no way to tell if the winner had contributed in any way to the death.
>Thus, I think we may be well on our way to Assasination Politics.
> - Sergey Goldgaber

I agree, but "contribute to death" needs to be operationalized.  Here's a
If a homicide suspect is arrested within N months, they will be isolated
from the net
and the owner of the winning ID will have to perform a challenge-response.
the suspect couldn't have replied, they are different; if a pair
collaborated, well,
when a hit man is caught, his payoff matrix will usually make him turn in
the client.

The N-months might be a weakness since there is no expiration time on
But in cases where cause of death is known and it can be proved that the
incarcerated is not the winner, it looks good.  E.g., a bet that "more than
two BATF agents will be blown up in 97" would be safely payable now that those
fellows with the short haircuts have been convicted.

      David Honig                   Orbit Technology
     [email protected]                  Intaanetto Jigyoubu

	"How do you know you are not being deceived?" 
	---A Compendium of Analytic TradeCraft Notes, 
	Directorate of Intelligence, CIA