Sorry if I was not clear. Perhaps you all can help me revise it? The recordkeepor of pesos is the Treasuror. E is the only person who can manage the holdings of the Treasury, and yes, e can cause the Treasury to give pesos to someone. Zefram, I don't see why it's not transferred freely. After all, by announcement, you can transfer pesos to another person. The only thing distinguishing this from a totally free market economy is a transfer tax of 25%, which may be revised (it does seem a little high).
Perhaps it should be a contract. After all, that seems like the right way to have it. Murphy, I don't see why you could cause yourself to spend the Treasury's pesos. Only the Treasuror can handle this. More feedback, please! Avpx On Dec 22, 2007 5:27 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nick Vanderweit wrote: > >Any player may spend N pesos to cause another player to gain .75*N > >pesos. However, if one of the parties in the transaction is the > >Treasury, > > The Treasury is not a player, so by definition neither party in the > transaction can be the Treasury. > > You didn't define a recordkeepor for pesos. Presumably you intend that > to be the Treasuror? > > Do you intend the Treasuror to have powers to transfer pesos from the > Treasury to players? > > Why are you doing this in a rule? It can be defined perfectly well by > contract, if you're not connecting it up to any rule-defined entities. > > -zefram >
