No. You *CAN* have both parties to commit a hash of a value @ a funding address, later combining these values w/ MOD(A+B) to get a psuedo-random value (see chainbet protocol).
Your attempt fits in the "hide the answer" category. Do anything possible to change the subject. Suddenly it is about me "clinging" to IQ and its "supposed applications".
If you could bring yourself to utter your implied question, you will find my answers are more than forthcoming. No question: no answer.
I have no idea why you would ask such a question. To confuse the issue maybe. In any case, you know the answer if you can manage to read/comprehend about 3 lines of text.
If my response was an example of dodging a question, what was the question I supposedly dodged?
It really is interesting to see the mental gymnastics people willingly do to avoid answering (or hide the answer to) the question of on average IQ differences between races.
It's really interesting to see the tenacity with which some cling to IQ and its supposed applications.
Hence the "tourism" aspect of the defamation suit. My guess is UK is friendly to that type of prosecution, and people bringing cases there for that reason eventually became a problem.
Somebody stole my phone yesterday in the bus, im about to lost my job because having a smartphone is neccesary for it, I dont know what do to, I need 70$ for a new one, please, guys, give me a hand
You don't need a new one...you need one that's new to you. Ask around: there's a class of people with drawers full of old smart phones.
...and another service begins to be subsumed by the-headless-one. These businesses are shackled by their reliance on law and will be unable to compete in a real free market.