On 1/29/21 12:42 PM, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote: > Miscellaneous comments and thoughts: > > * I think someone could get around the current proto by creating a new > locker every couple of days.
They wouldn't be able to transfer assets to it until they set an executor. > * Another workaround is to use other players as your locker, with > appropriate contracts or pledges so you can get your things back. > It's not a perfect workaround so maybe we could just let it be. This is sufficiently complicated, requires a sufficient amount of trust, and sufficiently hard to block that I don't see it being reasonable to block it. > * Saying the executor of a new contrtact is the person who created the > contract might partly mitigate the first workaround, but people could > conspire to make executors not match effective owners for a few days. > I think in that situation the workaround it would be about as > powerful as the second workaround (other players as lockers), since > at least all the possessions involved would be jointly-accessible by > someone. I considered this, but I wasn't sure it would always be clear who was the "first" member. > * As an alternative to the Middleman stone that doesn't depend on > Executors, what about this: you specify 4 Cards; they're revoked and > replaced with 2 products each with the same owner the Card had, and > you get 2 products too. Hmm. I'm ambivalent that that version would let you steal cards from inactive players, and I also think that's slightly more likely to break contracts than revoking cards outright. I'm don't think either version is strictly better though. > > * In general I'm still not that keen on the Executor idea. I'd probably > be a PRESENT for now, and maybe itching to repeal it in a few months > or a year once we've had a bit of fun with it. It adds some > complexity to the rules (though admittedly the implementation is > reasonably short and well-designed). I'd be more interested in seeing > theft protos that try to naturally disincentivise (or be neutral > about) lockers rather than depend on a heavy-handed rule change that > exists just so that theft is easy to define. Fair. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
