Re: DIS: Re: BUS: reflectively cheap
On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 at 04:13, Kerim Aydin wrote: > If it helps, the thought I had in mind was: > If the Rules associate payment of a set of assets (hereafter > the fee for the action; syns: cost, price, charge) with performing > an action, that action is a fee-based action. > The action of "destroying a coin" is certainly associated with a cost > (destruction) of a set of assets - namely, a coin. Therefore, destroying > a coin is a fee-based action. I read that as: If the Rules associate payment of a set of assets with performing an action, that action is a fee-based action, and (in that case) we define the fee, cost, price or charge for the action to be that set of assets. If that reading is correct, we don't apply those synonyms until we already know it's a fee-based action. Without the synonyms, my initial impression is the Rules don't associate any "payment" with the action of destroying 1 Coin, so it's not a fee-based action.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: reflectively cheap
If it helps, the thought I had in mind was: If the Rules associate payment of a set of assets (hereafter the fee for the action; syns: cost, price, charge) with performing an action, that action is a fee-based action. The action of "destroying a coin" is certainly associated with a cost (destruction) of a set of assets - namely, a coin. Therefore, destroying a coin is a fee-based action. On 7/17/2019 7:58 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: It doesn’t matter; the rules define instances of a currency owned by the same person as completely fungible. -Aris On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 9:45 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk < ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: On Wed, 2019-07-17 at 18:21 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: I pay a fee of one coin to destroy a coin. The coin you paid as part of the fee, or a different coin? The sentence is ambiguous in English. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: reflectively cheap
On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 11:08 PM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 11:05 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk < > ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > >> On Wed, 2019-07-17 at 22:58 -0400, Aris Merchant wrote: >> > It doesn’t matter; the rules define instances of a currency owned by >> > the same person as completely fungible. >> >> The two readings lead to different outcomes: "I pay a fee of 1 coin, >> the reason to do this was so that the coin I paid would be destroyed"; >> "I pay a fee of 1 coin, when I do that it causes a coin to be >> destroyed, meaning that I'm now down two coins". >> >> I suspect only one of these readings is a possible action under the >> Rules, but they both seem to fit the standard English meaning of the >> words. >> >> -- >> ais523 >> >> Oh, fair point. I hadn’t considered that one might pay a fee to destroy a > different coin. Sorry for missing that. > > -Aris > Which, incidentally, is extremely embarrassing, because that’s exactly what you suggested might be happening. Note to self: don’t try to do Agora while jet-lagged. -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: reflectively cheap
On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 11:05 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk < ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > On Wed, 2019-07-17 at 22:58 -0400, Aris Merchant wrote: > > It doesn’t matter; the rules define instances of a currency owned by > > the same person as completely fungible. > > The two readings lead to different outcomes: "I pay a fee of 1 coin, > the reason to do this was so that the coin I paid would be destroyed"; > "I pay a fee of 1 coin, when I do that it causes a coin to be > destroyed, meaning that I'm now down two coins". > > I suspect only one of these readings is a possible action under the > Rules, but they both seem to fit the standard English meaning of the > words. > > -- > ais523 > > Oh, fair point. I hadn’t considered that one might pay a fee to destroy a different coin. Sorry for missing that. -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: reflectively cheap
On Wed, 2019-07-17 at 22:58 -0400, Aris Merchant wrote: > It doesn’t matter; the rules define instances of a currency owned by > the same person as completely fungible. The two readings lead to different outcomes: "I pay a fee of 1 coin, the reason to do this was so that the coin I paid would be destroyed"; "I pay a fee of 1 coin, when I do that it causes a coin to be destroyed, meaning that I'm now down two coins". I suspect only one of these readings is a possible action under the Rules, but they both seem to fit the standard English meaning of the words. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: reflectively cheap
It doesn’t matter; the rules define instances of a currency owned by the same person as completely fungible. -Aris On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 9:45 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk < ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > On Wed, 2019-07-17 at 18:21 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > I pay a fee of one coin to destroy a coin. > > The coin you paid as part of the fee, or a different coin? The sentence > is ambiguous in English. > > -- > ais523 > >
DIS: Re: BUS: reflectively cheap
On Wed, 2019-07-17 at 18:21 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > I pay a fee of one coin to destroy a coin. The coin you paid as part of the fee, or a different coin? The sentence is ambiguous in English. -- ais523
