I thought of that. In some ways that would be preferable, but they're
an interesting system that hasn't been around that long. When it gets
closer to October (presuming we don't get rid of it sooner), we should
maybe come up something where we could create a timed repeal, and then
make delaying it
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 1:56 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> 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
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 transfer them to nobody in par
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. Back to the original poin
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.
-A
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 holdin
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 ru
>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 redu
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 d
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
10 matches
Mail list logo
