Ok I looked up competent authority and see how it works in this context. Back to the original point:
The rule here implies that if you attempt to decrease your own balance without specifying a destination, the currency is question is destroyed. (you are a competent authority for your own holdings). So if another rule says "you can do X by paying [without destination]", then since paying for it is an attempt to decrease your balance, that's a pretty strong implication that you do it by destroying it. And if you pay someone else, you're not doing what the rule says you need to do. On Fri, 27 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Actually this is may be huge hole. And I have no idea what "competent > authority" means. I'm an officer - that's pretty authoritative. And > my reports are fairly timely and accurate - that's fairly competent. > > So. An attempt. > > I decrease Corona's coin balance by 1. > > On Fri, 27 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > From Rule 2166/26: > > If a rule, proposal, or other > > competent authority attempts to increase or decrease the balance > > of an entity without specifying a source or destination, then the > > currency is created or destroyed as needed. > > > > "paying" without a destination attempts to reduce the payer's balance, so > > it destroys the currency? > > > > > > > > > >
