Yeah, exactly, looks like that would work. I might make it "explicitly"
permitted it the first sentence but that might be me being overcautious.
On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> Ah, I see now. So it should be something like:
>
> A party to a contract CAN perform any of the following actions
> as permitted by the contract's text:
>
> * Act on behalf of another party to the contract.
>
> * By announcement, destroy destructible assets in the
> contract's possession.
>
> * By announcement, transfer liquid assets in the contract's
> possession.
>
> ?
>
> (I'm not going to change my vote because I've _just_ managed to work out the
> precarious tower of conditional votes and I don't want to confuse myself. But
> it's nowhere near being adopted anyway.)
>
> -twg
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 11:39 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > No. Actions on behalf between persons are governed by R2466, which says
> > explicitly that the actor CAN use the same method the principal CAN. So
> > if the Rules say that Person A CAN transfer a currency "by announcement"
> > (which is covered in the Assets rules), and that Person B CAN act on
> > behalf of Person A (covered by act-on-behalf and current Contract rules),
> > then Person B CAN also do it "by announcement".
> >
> > But that only works between persons, not between person and contract.
> >
> > On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> >
> > > Well in that case it's similarly broken in the current rule as well,
> > > albeit only for actions on behalf, not for currency transfers. No?
> > > -twg
> > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> > > On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 2:35 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Sun, 25 Nov 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > 8138 twg 2.5 Access to contracts' assets
> > > >
> > > > I vote AGAINST 8138 and act on behalf of pokes to vote AGAINST 8138.
> > > >
> > > > > There seems to be no methods as required by rule 2125.
> > > >
> > > > I think "as permitted by a contract's text" may defer the method
> > > > specification to the contract (i.e. "by contract" is the specified
> > > > rules method, provided the contract says explicitly how to perform
> > > > the task).
> > > > However, this makes me realize what made me nervous: if that works,
> > > > the method specified in the contract could be private, which would
> > > > result in the contract being able to transfer currencies secretly
> > > > (not informing the recordkeepor) if the deference works. And if the
> > > > deference doesn't work, it's all broken anyway as Ørjan says.
>
>
>
