On 6/18/20 11:08 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: >> If the Rules associate payment of a set of actions (hereafter the fee > s/actions/assets/
Thanks, fixed on local copy. > >> for the action; syns: cost, price charge) with performing an action, > You lost a comma after "price". Fixed. > >> that mechanism for performing that action is a fee-based mechanism. > Shouldn't it be "method" rather than "mechanism"? (Everywhere in the > proposal.) > > The rules do talk about mechanisms in some places. I'm not sure what > the difference is, but e.g. R2125 and 1728 use the word "method" for > the sort of thing I think this proposal is trying to describe. Looks like you're right. Fixed. > >> If the Rules define a fee-based mechanism to perform an action, but the >> specified set of assets is the empty set, then the mechanism can be >> invoked by announcement, but the announcement must include that there is >> an (empty or 0) fee for the mechanism. > I'm not sure if the meaning of "invoking" a mechanism/method is clear > enough. What if we kept "then the action can be performed by > announcement" here? I don't feel strongly; both versions seem vaguely > fishy to me for different reasons. > > - Falsifian Yeah, I knew the "invoke" phrasing was weird when I wrote it, and the rules only define performing actions by announcement, not using methods by announcement. The cleanest solution might be to just drop the requirement of announcing a zero fee (or turn it into a SHOULD). -- Jason Cobb
