Re: BUS: Re: DIS: doesn't THIS apply to "pay" without a destination?
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? > > > > > > > > > >
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: doesn't THIS apply to "pay" without a destination?
Indeed, you're an authority, and you're competent, but that doesn't make you a competent authority. And you're right: although that's not what I intended (I wanted legacy for support for rules that still directly adjusted balances), it's nevertheless certainly a reasnoble enough interpretation. -Aris On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 3:20 PM Kerim Aydin 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? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: doesn't THIS apply to "pay" without a destination?
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 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? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: doesn't THIS apply to "pay" without a destination?
Nope. Indestructible assets can only be destroyed by a rule "other than this one" to catch exactly this kind of problem. -Aris On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 11:18 PM, Corona wrote: > 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 > 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? >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> >>
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: doesn't THIS apply to "pay" without a destination?
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". Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: doesn't THIS apply to "pay" without a destination?
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.
