On Sat, 28 Apr 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Fri, 27 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > 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. > > Something something "direct forward reasoning".
Direct, forward: This error-traps payments without destination, it's pretty clear. It's after the definition of "pay" within the same rule so it overrules that definition (R2240). Longer version but still straightforward: - Paying decreases your balance. - Paying without destination destroys things. - A rule lets you do something by paying (without specifying destination). - To do that, you destroy the things.
