On behalf of tar I transfer 20 coins to R. Lee
On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 2:24 PM James Cook wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 23:35, Rebecca wrote:
> > I also transfer tar's 20 coins to myself
>
> Does this work?
>
> R2466 requires that you "must, in the message in which the action is
> performed,
Does anyone else agree that a "by announcement" is needed here? If so,
someone might want to get a proposal submitted by the next distribution.
Jason Cobb
On 7/3/19 12:38 AM, omd wrote:
Does Proposal 8181 actually fix it? Rule 2557 still needs a "by announcement".
In any case, it seems to
On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 23:35, Rebecca wrote:
> I also transfer tar's 20 coins to myself
Does this work?
R2466 requires that you "must, in the message in which the action is
performed, uniquely identify the principal and that the action is
being taken on behalf of that person."
Specifically, you
On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 at 04:18, James Cook wrote:
> I judge CFJ 3751 FALSE.
However, I think the answer to the question Murphy was trying to ask
is TRUE. The message in G.'s gratuitous evidence makes it very clear
that Murphy intends to place those votes. This seems to me like common
sense or basic
Heh. Yeah, I've been keeping track of this. I've come close a few times
now. It's of course not my goal to stress this system (though I'm not
sure how much one person actually could with the excess case rule).
Jason Cobb
On 7/5/19 7:03 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I don't think you've *quite* hit
I'll do that, but I'm not at a laptop right now, so it'll be a few hours.
On Fri, Jul 5, 2019, 7:04 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On 7/5/2019 3:14 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > Hmm... maybe the statement should have been "The time window of [the
> > pledge] is 60 days."
>
> Remember that before it's
On 7/5/2019 3:14 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> Hmm... maybe the statement should have been "The time window of [the
> pledge] is 60 days."
Remember that before it's been assigned, you can retract the CFJ and
call a different one - adds no work on my end, and I don't think you've
*quite* hit your
Hmm... maybe the statement should have been "The time window of [the
pledge] is 60 days."
On Fri, Jul 5, 2019, 5:16 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Gratuitous:
>
> Let's say it's Day 31 and R. Lee has kept eir pledge so far. The answer
> to the question "did R. Lee [perform the correct behavior] for
Gratuitous:
Let's say it's Day 31 and R. Lee has kept eir pledge so far. The answer
to the question "did R. Lee [perform the correct behavior] for least 30 days
[from the time of the pledge]?" would be TRUE regardless of what happens
after that.
Whether (after the 30 days) the pledge is
I don't really see how that could be exploitable. Anyway, whenever a
rule says "If X occurs, Y occurs", that rule is pretty clearly the
agent for Y.
-Aris
On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 8:22 AM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> I didn't see that, but in any case I'm not 100% convinced by Aris' logic.
>
I didn't see that, but in any case I'm not 100% convinced by Aris' logic.
Letting rule changes take effect without clearly specifying the instrument
causing them just feels like the sort of thing which, if it worked, would have
been used by ais523 for a scam at some point.
-twg
‐‐‐
11 matches
Mail list logo
