It's Complicated: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1362
(or if not complicated, it's at least wordy).
On 2/4/2019 7:52 AM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
I assume G. was hinting to the fact that these are fungible assets yet
distinguishable. Not that the rules define what "fungible" means, anymore.
Which might make them hard to track, so just as well that there's no
No idea how you intend to get any advantage out of this, though.
On Mon, 4 Feb 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
Niiice, Telnaior. c: It wasn't, in fact, what I was going for. I guess
contracts are just horribly broken, huh.
I consent to be bound by the terms of the following document, with the
intent for it to become a contract provided G. also so agrees. (Slightly
modified from the previous version to improve G.'s security.)
This is a contract between twg and G. Other persons CANNOT become parties.
twg CAN modify this contract by announcement, with the exception that twg
CANNOT (and SHALL NOT attempt to) modify this contract such that it
imposes any obligation on G. or otherwise significantly harms eir standing
in the game, or such that this paragraph is removed, altered or otherwise
Beads are a currency defined by this contract. Ownership of beads is
restricted to any entity. twg CAN, by announcement, create a bead in the
possession of any entity.
Each bead has a colour, which is one of the following: red, green, blue,
cyan, magenta, yellow or white. The colour of a bead is set when it is
created and cannot thereafter be changed. An attempt to create a bead is
INEFFECTIVE if the colour of the bead is not specified.
(I'm also quite happy to just explain the scam, incidentally, and will on
request from G. But it seems more fun to give a relatively-harmless live