On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 10:57 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 4:37 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > ? Consider allowing acting on behalf for the purpose of fulfilling > > > marker-holder's obligations? > > > > Good idea. Could this be automatic? It is triggered manually, after > > all, and so far I seem to be getting away with it in the Bank of > > Agora. > > Doubtful. The rules do not grant a contract the power to make > arbitrary changes to asset holdings, whether the contract happens to > be the backing document for that class of assets or not. I hadn't > noticed the Bank of Agora was claiming to do this, but I doubt it > works there either. > > > > > * Someone destroying credits screws over the marker/credit balance. > > > Proto-solution: disallow credit destruction (they can be transferred > > > away nicely enough)? > > > > Also makes sense. > > Maybe I'm missing something, but what's the problem? Somebody who > destroys eir credits is only screwing emself.
When there are fewer credits than markers, then, collectively, those with the excess markers are unable to promise notes they actually have to promise since they have no way of redistributing the "lost" credits. -woggle
