Re: DIS: the next financial tool

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:


I'm sorry, but to me this really sounds lime you're talking about types of
rule defined currency, not instances. This is especially clear because one
can't have a set of instances that does not describe specific instances,
which this one can't because it's general (you can pay it off with anything
meeting the description). We really need to create a clear semantic
separation between classes and objects. An instance of an asset could be
called an item, but what would we call an instance of a currency (a money
sounds wrong). Or should we being going the other way, using the current
terms for instances and creating new ones to describe classes?


Rule 2166 ("Assets") is perfectly clear that an "asset" is what you call 
the instance, and that a "currency" is a class of assets, although it 
seems to use some different phrasing when describing currencies in more 
detail (both "units" and "instances" of currency are used, in different 
paragraphs.)


Then rule 2450, 2515 and 2561 all muddle this up further with assets, and 
currencies seem to keep being referred to in their own terms.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: the next financial tool

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> 
> > I'm sorry, but to me this really sounds lime you're talking about types of
> > rule defined currency, not instances. This is especially clear because one
> > can't have a set of instances that does not describe specific instances,
> > which this one can't because it's general (you can pay it off with anything
> > meeting the description). We really need to create a clear semantic
> > separation between classes and objects. An instance of an asset could be
> > called an item, but what would we call an instance of a currency (a money
> > sounds wrong). Or should we being going the other way, using the current
> > terms for instances and creating new ones to describe classes?
> 
> Rule 2166 ("Assets") is perfectly clear that an "asset" is what you call the
> instance, and that a "currency" is a class of assets, although it seems to use
> some different phrasing when describing currencies in more detail (both
> "units" and "instances" of currency are used, in different paragraphs.)
> 
> Then rule 2450, 2515 and 2561 all muddle this up further with assets, and
> currencies seem to keep being referred to in their own terms.

It all needs a lot of unmuddling and refactoring.  The contract-related stuff
should be broken out into its own set of rules, too - that Assets rule is
quite unwieldy.

DIS: doesn't THIS apply to "pay" without a destination?

[Kerim Aydin]

>From Rule 2166/26:
  If a rule, proposal, or other
  competent authority attempts to increase or decrease the balance
  of an entity without specifying a source or destination, then the
  currency is created or destroyed as needed.

"paying" without a destination attempts to reduce the payer's balance, so 
it destroys the currency?  

DIS: Protos on github

[Kerim Aydin]

I don't know if this will turn out to be useful, but I've put a protos repo
on our github:
https://github.com/AgoraNomic/protos

I've put in there an Assets start-of-proto.  Right now, it's a copy of the
assets rule, where I've clipped out secondary stuff that may be better housed
in other rules (and put it down below in the doc).  Feel free to contribute...

-G.

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: doesn't THIS apply to "pay" without a destination?

[Kerim Aydin]

Ok I looked up competent authority and see how it works in this
context.  Back to the original point:

The rule here implies that if you attempt to decrease your own
balance without specifying a destination, the currency is question is
destroyed. (you are a competent authority for your own holdings).

So if another rule says "you can do X by paying [without 
destination]", then since paying for it is an attempt to decrease
your balance, that's a pretty strong implication that you do it
by destroying it.  And if you pay someone else, you're not doing
what the rule says you need to do.

On Fri, 27 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Actually this is may be huge hole.  And I have no idea what "competent 
> authority" means.  I'm an officer - that's pretty authoritative.  And 
> my reports are fairly timely and accurate - that's fairly competent.
> 
> So.  An attempt.
> 
> I decrease Corona's coin balance by 1.
> 
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > From Rule 2166/26:
> >   If a rule, proposal, or other
> >   competent authority attempts to increase or decrease the balance
> >   of an entity without specifying a source or destination, then the
> >   currency is created or destroyed as needed.
> > 
> > "paying" without a destination attempts to reduce the payer's balance, so 
> > it destroys the currency?  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >
> 
>

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: doesn't THIS apply to "pay" without a destination?

[Aris Merchant]

Indeed, you're an authority, and you're competent, but that doesn't make
you a competent authority. And you're right: although that's not what I
intended (I wanted legacy for support for rules that still directly
adjusted balances), it's nevertheless certainly a reasnoble enough
interpretation.

-Aris

On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 3:20 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> Ok I looked up competent authority and see how it works in this
> context.  Back to the original point:
>
> The rule here implies that if you attempt to decrease your own
> balance without specifying a destination, the currency is question is
> destroyed. (you are a competent authority for your own holdings).
>
> So if another rule says "you can do X by paying [without
> destination]", then since paying for it is an attempt to decrease
> your balance, that's a pretty strong implication that you do it
> by destroying it.  And if you pay someone else, you're not doing
> what the rule says you need to do.
>
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Actually this is may be huge hole.  And I have no idea what "competent
> > authority" means.  I'm an officer - that's pretty authoritative.  And
> > my reports are fairly timely and accurate - that's fairly competent.
> >
> > So.  An attempt.
> >
> > I decrease Corona's coin balance by 1.
> >
> > On Fri, 27 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > > From Rule 2166/26:
> > >   If a rule, proposal, or other
> > >   competent authority attempts to increase or decrease the balance
> > >   of an entity without specifying a source or destination, then the
> > >   currency is created or destroyed as needed.
> > >
> > > "paying" without a destination attempts to reduce the payer's balance,
> so
> > > it destroys the currency?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>