Gratuitous:
I don't think I understood G.'s argument. As far as I can tell, this
is straightforward. R2579 says "To perform a fee-based action, an
entity ... must announce", and later "Upon such an announcement". I
think the first excerpt is clearly only talking about fee-based
actions, and the second excerpt refers to the first and so is also
only talking about fee-based actions. As G. points out in eir original
argument, this is not a fee-based action. So R2579 does not define any
mechanism for G. to destroy a Coin when no fee-based action is
involved.
On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 at 00:56, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> The below CFJ is 3750. I assign it to twg.
>
>
> === CFJ 3750 ===
>
>In this message, G. destroyed a coin.
>
> ==
>
> Caller:G.
>
> Judge: twg
>
> ==
>
> History:
>
> Called by G.: 01 Jul 2019 15:29:30
> Assigned to twg: [now]
>
> ==
>
> Caller's Arguments:
>
> The award in question is not a fee-based action at all. R2579 specifies
> that if a *correct* fee-announcement is (but e.g. the actor does not have
> the fee) then no asset holdings are changed. In the case of an
> "incorrect" fee-announcement, there's no fail-safe that I can find one
> way or the other - do the assets change?
>
> --
>
> Caller's Evidence:
>
> On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 8:29 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > I award myself the Patent Title "nouveau riche" by paying a fee of 1
> > Coin for this sole purpose.
>
> ==
>
