Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Non-fee based mechanisms for fee-based actions

On 6/19/20 5:54 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: > Is "intent to pay that fee" strong enough? It doesn't seem to me as if > that necessarily requires the payment being possible or succeeding. This is the existing wording, and is protected by the next paragraph. --

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Non-fee based mechanisms for fee-based actions

On 6/18/20 11:42 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > On 6/18/20 3:22 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: >> I submit (but do not pend) the following proposal: >> >> Title: Fee-based mechanisms >> >> Author: Jason >> >> Coauthors: Falsifian >> >> Adoption index: 3.0 > > > I withdraw

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Non-fee based mechanisms for fee-based actions

On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 at 03:32, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/18/20 11:29 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > > What would the text look like then? (I don't follow how the "invoke" > > phrasing relates to the requirement about specifying zero fee.) > > > I would phrase it

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Non-fee based mechanisms for fee-based actions

On 6/18/20 11:29 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > What would the text look like then? (I don't follow how the "invoke" > phrasing relates to the requirement about specifying zero fee.) I would phrase it as "If a fee-based method to perform an action has a fee of no assets, that

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Non-fee based mechanisms for fee-based actions

> >> If the Rules define a fee-based mechanism to perform an action, but the > >> specified set of assets is the empty set, then the mechanism can be > >> invoked by announcement, but the announcement must include that there is > >> an (empty or 0) fee for the mechanism. > > I'm not sure if the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Non-fee based mechanisms for fee-based actions

On 6/18/20 11:08 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: >> If the Rules associate payment of a set of actions (hereafter the fee > s/actions/assets/ Thanks, fixed on local copy. > >> for the action; syns: cost, price charge) with performing an action, > You lost a comma after "price".

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Non-fee based mechanisms for fee-based actions

> If the Rules associate payment of a set of actions (hereafter the fee s/actions/assets/ > for the action; syns: cost, price charge) with performing an action, You lost a comma after "price". > that mechanism for performing that action is a fee-based mechanism. Shouldn't it be "method"