On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 10:55 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, ais523 wrote: > > Ah yes; my trigger publicises the whole contract. Doing it with portions > > wouldn't necessarily be too difficult, though; you only need one slave > > contract, which can be amended to add parties actions as needed. > > My whole point is, sure you can do that, but it adds a bureaucratic and > easy-to-screw-up overhead that doesn't actually add anything of value, > when the alternative is to have the proposed Rule allow relevant clauses > of private contracts to work. -G. > That can probably be added later rather than messing up the fix now, though; and I still think that your alternative potentially leads to rather awkward hidden-information scams (see comex's recent attempt to act on my behalf; contracts are generally taken to be able to define the terms they use).
-- ais523
