On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Yeah, exactly, looks like that would work. I might make it "explicitly"
permitted it the first sentence but that might be me being overcautious.
Still doesn't fix your worry about secrecy, though.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
Ah, I see now. So it should be something like:
A party to a contract CAN perform any of the following actions
as permitted by the contract's text:
* Act on behalf of another party to the contract.
* By announcement, destroy destructible assets in the
contract's possession.
* By announcement, transfer liquid assets in the contract's
possession.
?
(I'm not going to change my vote because I've _just_ managed to work out the
precarious tower of conditional votes and I don't want to confuse myself. But
it's nowhere near being adopted anyway.)
-twg
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 11:39 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu>
wrote:
No. Actions on behalf between persons are governed by R2466, which says
explicitly that the actor CAN use the same method the principal CAN. So
if the Rules say that Person A CAN transfer a currency "by announcement"
(which is covered in the Assets rules), and that Person B CAN act on
behalf of Person A (covered by act-on-behalf and current Contract rules),
then Person B CAN also do it "by announcement".
But that only works between persons, not between person and contract.
On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
Well in that case it's similarly broken in the current rule as well, albeit
only for actions on behalf, not for currency transfers. No?
-twg
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 2:35 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
8138 twg 2.5 Access to contracts' assets
I vote AGAINST 8138 and act on behalf of pokes to vote AGAINST 8138.
There seems to be no methods as required by rule 2125.
I think "as permitted by a contract's text" may defer the method
specification to the contract (i.e. "by contract" is the specified
rules method, provided the contract says explicitly how to perform
the task).
However, this makes me realize what made me nervous: if that works,
the method specified in the contract could be private, which would
result in the contract being able to transfer currencies secretly
(not informing the recordkeepor) if the deference works. And if the
deference doesn't work, it's all broken anyway as Ørjan says.
