Contracts, basically. However, I still have the draft around and since contracts seem to be in limbo, I’ll put it up again and try to get it under vote.
If we need escrow we can always reinvent it. -o > On Oct 12, 2017, at 9:46 PM, Aris Merchant > <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 6:40 PM Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: >> >> >> Where does it say that a transfer recipient defaults to agora? By >> my reading that would fail for being ambiguous. > > I mean that spending might be a particular kind of transferring that defaults > to Agora. It would probably make more sense have it just be to Agora. I was > thinking that if a contract says "A can do B by transferring 10 shinies to > this contract" and A says "I do B by spending 10 shinies" it should work. Now > that I think about it, I should add that idea to my proposal somehow. > >> >> Also, my recent frustrations is several folks (not just you) have been >> working on Big Ideas so we've deferred making minor fixes like that, >> But the Big Ideas have been delayed and we've muddled on. so >> breaking it out would be great. >> >> (On that note, why the heck did repealing organizations stall out?) > > They're not doing much harm, and it will be slightly easier to replace them > with contracts if they still exist. I don't think that was the reason > though... > > -Aris > >> >> On Fri, 13 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: >> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 6:23 PM Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Fri, 13 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: >> > > Is it just me, or is spending a shiny currently undefined? >> > >> > No, we had a discussion of that last month, when I brought it >> > up. >> > >> > There was a pseudo-conclusion that spent couldn't be a >> > synonym for paid, because paid requires specifying the >> > recipient. So the idea is that one common way to use >> > "Spent" is as a synonym for "used up" so therefore it means >> > "Destroyed" and the assets rule says that attempts to >> > destroy indestructible currencies instead transfers it to >> > Agora (by the Assets rule) so it all works out. There was no >> > CFJ, this was just discussion. >> > >> > >> > There are two sensible interpretations. In one case it would mean >> > transferring, defaulting to transferring to Agora. In the >> > other it would mean destroying it, which in this case would mean >> > transferring to Agora. Despite the second being my idea, I >> > actually prefer the first one. It doesn't matter though, because as soon >> > as you narrow it down to those two possibilities the >> > outcome is the same. There's a fix to this in section 3 of my contracts >> > proposal. Given the high demand, I'll probably split >> > that part off into a separate proposal this week (haven't been using my >> > AP). >> > >> > -Aris >> > >> > >> >
