at 11:30 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
<agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
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?
Yeah.
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.
Hmm... R2519(2) wouldn’t apply in the case of other sources of
act-on-behalf besides contracts, but I suppose none of them are exploitable:
- Zombies: you already patched the zombies rule to forbid making a zombie
create a promise.
- The Administrative State: creating a promise probably doesn’t count as an
officer “exercising eir official powers”. (But I’d love to see a case
where it did.)
- Promises themselves: not applicable since being able to manufacture
consent through promises is by design.
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.
Heh, I forgot that Rule 869’s anti-mousetrap clause was still there. Rule
2519’s definition of consent is at power 3, but I wonder if there could be
some difference between “consent” and Rule 869’s “willful consent”.
