No, I agree that they shouldn't be merged right now, I'm just pointing out that this can be done as soon as we have new-model-contracts. These are standard terms, available to everyone. So someone could make an offer, exactly as if this were a rule, and then as soon as another person fufuiled it, there would be a contract between them. At the time of the contracts system you brought up, I believe pledges _were_ defined as a kind of contract. I'm quite sure that I remember seeing a ruleset where they were at any rate. Still, it seems quite reasonable to keep everything separate for now and then merge things (or more accurately, make things special cases of other things) if we see a reason to at later point, after we know how the releavant systems are working out.
-Aris On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 5:54 AM Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > The whole point of Trades is that, like pledges, there should be > some defined, automatic, working, and easy-to-make thing rather than just > saying "sure this can all be done with contracts but nobody bothers > because that takes effort." > > As an example, Pledges could be incorporated into contracts too. But > people actually use pledges (and the tracking is fairly incidental and > not-value added) and bringing them into contracts would kill them. > > I think it would come up as frequently as pledges. > > On Mon, 11 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > > This could easily be done under the less formal contracts of the new > > system. You could just make the information public, and then the contract > > would follow fairly naturally and be implied. To be honest, I'm pretty > > excited about these new contracts. They may have problems (lack of > > recordkeeping comes to mind), but those can be fixed as they arise. > > > > I'm not sure if this needs to be a standalone rule. How often do you > think > > it would come up? > > > > -Aris > > > > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 11:44 PM Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Proto: Trades. > > > > > > [this might be a type of contract or something but it seems nice like > > > a standalone too] > > > > > > A player (the seller) CAN create a Trade Offer by announcement, > > > specifying a set of assets e owns (the tender) and an action > > > (the exchange) that e wants in trade (e.g. a transfer of assets > > > to emself). E may optionally specify a set of players other > > > than the seller eligible to make the exchange (buyers). If e > > > does not specify the default buyers are all players other than > > > the seller. > > > > > > A Trade Offer is valid until: > > > (a) a buyer makes the exchange for that Trade Offer; > > > (b) the seller withdraws the offer; or > > > (c) one week has passed. > > > > > > A buyer makes the exchange on a valid Trade Offer by > > > announcement, citing the specific offer as the reason for > > > performing the exchange action, provided that (1) the buyer > > > CAN otherwise perform the exchange action by announcement; > > > (2) the seller CAN transfer the tender to the buyer by > announcement. > > > > > > When the exchange is made, that buyer performs the exchange > action, > > > and immediately afterwards the tender is transferred from the > > > seller to the buyer. If either portion of the trade fails, > > > both fail (no exchange action is performed and no tender is > > > transferred). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
