On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:54, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 12:52 -0700, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> I agree to the following pledge/contract if ehird also does:
>> {
>> 1. The name of this pledge / contract is the InterBank Reconciliation
>> Agreement
>>
>> 2. Upon the i
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 12:52 -0700, Roger Hicks wrote:
> I agree to the following pledge/contract if ehird also does:
> {
> 1. The name of this pledge / contract is the InterBank Reconciliation
> Agreement
>
> 2. Upon the inception of this agreement, BobTHJ SHALL modify eir PBA
> report to reflect
BobTHJ wrote:
> 1. We need a unified gamestate, and we honestly can't afford to wait
> for a four-day without objection ratification process to complete. We
> need to decide on something and sync things up today, then ratify
> that.
Proto-proto: Velocity is a contract switch, tracked by the Nota
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 10:38, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6 Nov 2008, at 17:18, Elliott Hird wrote:
>
>> Here I was thinking automated systems are good because they can handle
>> knock-on effects.
>> It's why I wrote mine, after all.
>
>
> Worth noting: It's not even a change of po
On 6 Nov 2008, at 17:18, Elliott Hird wrote:
Here I was thinking automated systems are good because they can
handle knock-on effects.
It's why I wrote mine, after all.
Worth noting: It's not even a change of policy. It's just the fixing
of a bug that would
have given Wooble something e c
On 6 Nov 2008, at 17:15, Roger Hicks wrote:
The AAA has treated this withdraw as a success since 10/22, so for
you to change it
now would require a complete re-calculation of the AAA, and
subsequently the RBOA, and
subsequently Vote Market, PRS, Note Exchange, etc.
Here I was thinking aut
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 10:06, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6 Nov 2008, at 16:21, Roger Hicks wrote:
>
>> A contract should be able to ratify its own internal gamestate using
>> whatever method it desires. However, if you think you can fix whatever
>> bug is causing this issue then I
On 6 Nov 2008, at 16:21, Roger Hicks wrote:
A contract should be able to ratify its own internal gamestate using
whatever method it desires. However, if you think you can fix whatever
bug is causing this issue then I'll wait.
Yes, it was a knock-on effect of fixing a previous bug. Oops...
Th
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 08:51, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6 Nov 2008, at 15:42, Roger Hicks wrote:
>
>> With the support of the people, I intend to ratify the coin holdings
>> and PBA exchange rates as of Nov 6 2008 00:01 (just after the daily
>> exchange rate change) as follows:
>
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 08:23, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hm. That is weird indeed. See, this should work fine: the RBoA transactions
> are
> liberal but the rest are conservative, just like it's always been:
>
>if target == 'RBoA':
>while comrades[person] < amou
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 08:18, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6 Nov 2008, at 15:11, Roger Hicks wrote:
>
> I believe it is the conflict of the PBA's exactness-requirements and the
> RBoA's
> looseness. Perhaps the RBoA policy could change to require exactness for
> cases like
> these?
On 6 Nov 2008, at 15:37, Roger Hicks wrote:
I'm not sure either. Can we ratify the gamestate of the PBA to what my
report would show at 00:00 on Nov 6 (just prior to Wooble's most
recent transaction)? Then you can use whatever policy you wish going
forward (there should be no further direct RBO
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 08:11, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 06:46, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 8:43 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I intend to leave the Protection Racket agreement.
>>>
>>> I transfer 50 co
On 6 Nov 2008, at 15:18, Roger Hicks wrote:
Evidence - Wooble's first four transactions with the PBA (copied from
the current PBA log). According to the log, I have noted the number of
coins Wooble would have after each transaction:
2008-10-15 15:29 -- Wooble joins.
2008-10-15 15:29 -- Wooble de
On 6 Nov 2008, at 15:11, Roger Hicks wrote:
otherwise I'm not sure if this multiple recordkeepor's thing is
going to work.
I don't recall advocating it, either.
On 6 Nov 2008, at 15:11, Roger Hicks wrote:
(NOTE: Ignore Wooble's transaction on my automated log. I entered it,
but it won't di
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 06:46, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 8:43 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I intend to leave the Protection Racket agreement.
>>
>> I transfer 50 coins to BobTHJ.
>
> And if that failed, I PBA-deposit an X crop and then tra
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 11:35 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just going through my Notary records, I can't find where Wooble joined
> the protection racket (although I vaguely remember it happening). When
> was it?
July 16, 17:53:38 UTC
On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 09:46 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
> I intend with the majority consent of the Dons to transfer chits from
> the Protection Racket to the Dons as follows:
>
> tusho - 100 Chits
> Wooble - 100 Chits
> BobTHJ - 100 Chits
>
Just going through my Notary records, I can't find where
2008/7/25 Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I intend with the majority consent of the Dons to transfer chits from
> the Protection Racket to the Dons as follows:
>
> tusho - 100 Chits
> Wooble - 100 Chits
> BobTHJ - 100 Chits
>
> BobTHJ
>
I consent.
19 matches
Mail list logo
