On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 11:20 PM omd via agora-discussion <[email protected]> wrote: > > at 11:06 PM, Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I think that having single-party contracts feels / is safer. You can > > arbitrarily amend it without needing to rely on anyone else and nobody else > > can join it which adds another layer of speculative protection. > > I don’t think single-party contracts are secure, though. Regardless of > what the text says about amendment, by R1742 it can always be done “with > the consent of all existing parties”. Consent can’t be given by someone > acting on behalf of you, since R2519(1) says “acting as emself”… but it > doesn’t have to be. If the concern is that you’d get caught in a mousetrap > contract that would allow others to act on behalf of you, that contract can > also make you consent by R2519(2). > > There's also a certain loophole in R2519 that makes the “acting as emself” > guard useless...
Damn it. I broke that one way, and then my fix broke it another way. You are referring, I presume, to the fact that one doesn't need to consent to create a promise? At least I can't think of a situation where that's exploitable where you wouldn't be able to do something under R2519(2) anyway. Also, I think there's a pretty fair argument that R869's anti-mousetrap clause requires consent anyway, though again, R2519(2) likely provides it for the case of contract exploits. -Aris
