I don’t believe you can simulate me / Fuck you for simulating me.
For reference, my response would generally be a combination of these, but for somewhat different reasons. Namely: parity[1] of the first bitcoin block mined at least 2 minutes[2] after the question was asked decides whether to 2box or 1box[3]. Why? A combination of a few things:
It’s checkable after the fact.
Memorizing enough details to check it after the fact is fairly doable.
A fake-Omega cannot really e.g. just selectively choose when to ask the question.
It’s relatively immutable.
It pulls in sources of randomness from all over.
It’s difficult to spoof without either a) being detectable or b) presenting abilities that rule out most ‘mundane’ explanations.
Sure, a fake-Omega could, for instance, mine the next block themselves
...but either a) the fake-Omega has broken SHA, in which case yikes, or b) the fake-Omega has a significant amount of computational resources available.
Yes, something like parity of a different secure hash (or e.g. an HMAC, etc) of the block could be better, as e.g. someone could have built a miner that nondeterministicly fails to properly calculate a hash depending on how many ones are in the result, but meh. This is simple and good enough I think.
For reference, my response would generally be a combination of these, but for somewhat different reasons. Namely: parity[1] of the first bitcoin block mined at least 2 minutes[2] after the question was asked decides whether to 2box or 1box[3]. Why? A combination of a few things:
It’s checkable after the fact.
Memorizing enough details to check it after the fact is fairly doable.
A fake-Omega cannot really e.g. just selectively choose when to ask the question.
It’s relatively immutable.
It pulls in sources of randomness from all over.
It’s difficult to spoof without either a) being detectable or b) presenting abilities that rule out most ‘mundane’ explanations.
Sure, a fake-Omega could, for instance, mine the next block themselves
...but either a) the fake-Omega has broken SHA, in which case yikes, or b) the fake-Omega has a significant amount of computational resources available.
Yes, something like parity of a different secure hash (or e.g. an HMAC, etc) of the block could be better, as e.g. someone could have built a miner that nondeterministicly fails to properly calculate a hash depending on how many ones are in the result, but meh. This is simple and good enough I think.
(Or rather, long enough that any blocks already mined have had a chance to propagate.)
In this case https://blockexplorer.one/bitcoin/mainnet/blockId/720944 , which has a hash of …a914ff87, hence odd, hence 1box.