On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 8:59 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> 5564 D0 2 root Repeal Partnerships >> AGAINST > > If I may ask, why do you support retaining a construct that is only > useful for running scams?
I don't believe that partnerships are only useful for running scams, although I do think that some reform is necessary to make it harder to use them to run scams. Quite frankly, having them run scams against other contracts doesn't bother me too much; I think the Bank of Agora thing could have been fixed by inserting "first-class" in one place, and if a contract isn't written to be robust it probably *should* be exploited.
