Hmm, does this mean you can arbitrarily destroy indestructible assets by attempting to transfer them to nobody in particular?
~Corona On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 12:20 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > 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? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
