On 08/10/2011 11:52 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 21:41, Pavitra <celestialcognit...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 08/10/2011 11:24 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: >>> I destroy my copy of this Promise. >> >> I'm not sure this actually works. I vaguely remember an attempt to fix >> this problem with legislation, which I think passed, but... >> >> R2166 (power 2): >> An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by >> announcement >> >> R2337 (power 3): >> Creating and cashing promises is secured with power threshold 3; >> any other modifications to promise holdings are secured with >> power threshold 2. >> >> 2166 alone implies you can destroy a promise you hold. 2337 alone >> implies you can't. >> >> R1030 puts rule power at higher precedence than >> If all of the Rules in conflict explicitly say that their >> precedence relations are determined by some other Rule for >> determining precedence relations >> which implies that R2337's attempt to only secure at power 2 basically >> doesn't work. > > No, "secured with power 2" means "cannot be done except as allowed by > rules with power 2 or greater." This creates no conflict, so > precedence is irrelevant.
All right, I'll buy that.
