Satoshi’d: Definition

We got Satoshi’d.
We Satoshi’d ourselves

Consider this passage from a blog post by Nick Szabo (number one suspect for being at least part of Sataoshi Nakomoto):

Perhaps less easily resolved, because one of its assumptions is the vague and subjective idea of “intent”, is the paradox of Gregory Kavka’s toxin: you get $1 million put in your bank account at 9 AM if at 7 AM you intend to drink an extremely painful but not otherwise harmful toxin at 11 AM. The toxin basically causes you to live in sheer hell for 24 hours. You get to keep the million dollars whether you drink the toxin or not. Can you intend to do something that when the time comes would not be rational to do? Kavka says you can’t – that there is no way to win the $1 million. Turn off your alarm and sleep in.
My analysis is that the only ways to win the $1 million are through credible commitment or self-delusion. Thus the Wikipedia entry cites election-year political promises that would actually be too expensive to implement as an example of Kavka’s toxin. Of course the political party only fools others (and perhaps themselves) into believing its intent.

This is interesting to consider in regard to segwit and 2x. Can u intend to do something that causes harm, and go through with it, if the reward is paid before the agreed upon (but “un-binded”) event occurs? In other words can u have a group sign an agreement that puts pressure to enact segwit and not have the agreement to 2x fork fall apart after segwit is already locked in?

In regard to futures and smart contracts the conclusion is interesting:

Standard election procedures, in which campaign promises are not legally binding, prevent credible commitment, so serious intent only could arise through self-delusion.
Like what you read? Give Juice a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.