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 des
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
what
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
6 matches
Mail list logo