Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Stonemason] November Stone Auction Distribution Attempt 2

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On 11/16/2021 5:26 PM, Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2021, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
> 
>> On 11/16/2021 6:38 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote:
>>> I perform the following actions if and only if they all succeed:
>>>
>>> {
>>>
>>> I destroy 150 of Jason's coins.
>>>
>>> I cause the Hot Potato Stone to be transferred to Jason.
>>>
>>> I wield the Hot Potato Stone, transferring it to ais523.
>>>
>>> }
>>
>> Informal CFJ Addendum: I think that the above trick might (arguably) work
>> if reading R2645 in isolation, but only works if the winner of the auction
>> is the auctioneer.  Therefore, if this was relied upon to say "look, a
>> transfer is possible, so the auction happened" the problem is that it
>> isn't a "fair and equitable" method for conducting the auction as required
>> by R2545, since the winner can only collect if e is the auctioneer.  So it
>> would still mean the auction was never initiated, though maybe for
>> slightly different reasons.
> 
> Actually, looking at R2545, it also authorizes the _winners_ to perform 
> the transfers.
> 
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.
> 

Yep! though with an added step: that depends on the "auction method" to
define how that works.  In this case the Stonemason specified the method
as a set of Regulations in which the auctioneer makes the transfers (as
per the last paragraph of R2545, the auction method has to be a regulation
to set up a "rules-defined" transfer).  In fact, the previous version of
the auction regulations *did* have the winners making the transfers
instead of the auctioneer, but those weren't working for other reasons, so
it was changed to being the auctioneer.

But it definitely means that this issue *could* be solved using your (very
nice!) trick plus different regulations, instead of a rule change - of
course a rule change is far cleaner I think...?