Janet Cobb via agora-business [2023-06-05 15:28]:
> On 6/5/23 13:58, juan via agora-business wrote:
> > 8998: AGAINST. Quite literally impossible to determine. Also, stamp reports
> > ratify
>
> ais523 got it right:
>
> >> 8998* Janet 3.0 Stamp fungibility correction
> > FOR (presumably the issue that we're trying to fix is that some stamp
> > trades may have failed due to there being no specification of which of
> > two apparently identical stamps with different history was traded; I'm
> > not convinced there's actually an issue there, but converging the
> > gamestate nonetheless makes sense)
> >
>
> This is just "stamps always worked as we thought they did".
No, it's not. It's a blanket assertion that “everything” is as it
would have been. We don't know that. Maybe the different bytes stored on
the server changed the CPU heat emission just enough so that, weeks later,
there was a hurricane across the globe, which temporarily disconnected
one of the players that then didn't perform a specific action at a s
pecific time.
Is this ridiculous? Yes. But then again: that is what is written.
> The gamestate, other than the ruleset, is what it would be if Rule 2659
> ("Stamps") had been enacted with its second paragraph reading
And what if someone comes up with a more pertinent example down the line?
To be clear, I'm not worried about that. I'm not worried about the state
not being what we think it is. But to make a fuss about it, we should
do it right. If you want to converge game-state, ratify specifically the
information that you want to ratify. And at that: stamp holdings already
ratified. Contracts as well. Is there something that did not ratify?
--
juan
