I see your point on multiset - on reflection not as bad as my first reaction. I think overall we're looking at some clarifications in both a new fee rule and current assets rule so will aim for an organized whole on the next draft...
On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > Thank you for the explanatio. If you're CFJ point is correct, it would be > equivalent to "I do X 0 times", which is effective at doing nothing. I > believe the actor would be required to do nothing, which anyone CAN do by > definition. As your rule is currently written, I believe that it would > work, but I can see why you might want to be extra careful with the edge > case. Any thoughts on my other points? > > -Aris > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 5:48 PM Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > > > Hang on for a second. I don't get what wrong with paying a fee of 0. The > > > fee for a given action is defined. If I pay a fee of 0, then I haven't > > paid > > > the specified fee for the action, so I can't do anything. The only case > > > where it comes up is when the fee for an action is defined as 0, in which > > > case we want the action to suceed. What am I misunderstanding? > > > > If the wording is such that I must "transfer the fee to perform the > > action", > > have I paid a fee of 0 if I transfer you nothing? I can say I did, but did > > I actually "transfer the fee"? > > > > The Assets rule reads: > > An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. paid, given) by > > announcement > > > > it *doesn't* say that "no assets" CAN be transferred. So you CANNOT > > transfer no assets while still having the legal effect of calling it > > a "transfer". > > > > This is exactly the principle as "if I flip a switch to its same value, > > have I flipped a switch"? > > > > > > > > >
