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
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
>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
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
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
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.
6 matches
Mail list logo
