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

On Sat, 28 Apr 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Fri, 27 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > 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

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

On Fri, 27 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: 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

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

Nope. Indestructible assets can only be destroyed by a rule "other than this one" to catch exactly this kind of problem. -Aris On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 11:18 PM, Corona wrote: > Hmm, does this mean you can arbitrarily destroy indestructible assets by > attempting to

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

​Hmm, does this mean you can arbitrarily destroy indestructible assets by attempting to transfer them to nobody in particular? ~Corona On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 12:20 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Ok I looked up competent authority and see how it works in this > context.

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

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.

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

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

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

>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