Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2238 assigned to Wooble
ehird wrote: > On 27 Oct 2008, at 14:28, comex wrote: > >> I think there's just a fundamental problem trading assets with >> different recordkeepors. I repeat that automation would be nice-- one >> entity could effectively recordkeep all assets anyone cared to make, >> removing the current constraints on the asset system. Plus it would >> look really cool. > > > Proto: Agora becomes a codenomic. AGAINST. Let it be done per-contract, e.g. "a person CAN trade coins by announcement conforming to ".
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2238 assigned to Wooble
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 08:33, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Elliott Hird > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Proto: Agora becomes a codenomic. > > Proto: PNP becomes the Accountor, someone besides me writes the code > to make that work, and all contracts are amended to remove the > recordkeepors of the assets they define. > I would agree to this (though I'm not volunteering to write the code...Perl scares me). BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2238 assigned to Wooble
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 27 Oct 2008, at 14:33, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > >> Proto: PNP becomes the Accountor, someone besides me writes the code >> to make that work, and all contracts are amended to remove the >> recordkeepors of the assets they define. > > > Proto: Agora absorbs PerlNomic. It kind of already has, tbh
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2238 assigned to Wooble
On 27 Oct 2008, at 14:33, Geoffrey Spear wrote: Proto: PNP becomes the Accountor, someone besides me writes the code to make that work, and all contracts are amended to remove the recordkeepors of the assets they define. Proto: Agora absorbs PerlNomic. -- ehird
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2238 assigned to Wooble
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Proto: Agora becomes a codenomic. Proto: PNP becomes the Accountor, someone besides me writes the code to make that work, and all contracts are amended to remove the recordkeepors of the assets they define.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2238 assigned to Wooble
On 27 Oct 2008, at 14:28, comex wrote: I think there's just a fundamental problem trading assets with different recordkeepors. I repeat that automation would be nice-- one entity could effectively recordkeep all assets anyone cared to make, removing the current constraints on the asset system. Plus it would look really cool. Proto: Agora becomes a codenomic. -- ehird
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2238 assigned to Wooble
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 9:40 AM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The RBoA has exactly the same problem, except BobTHJ controls almost every > currency it > trades in anyway. I think there's just a fundamental problem trading assets with different recordkeepors. I repeat that automation would be nice-- one entity could effectively recordkeep all assets anyone cared to make, removing the current constraints on the asset system. Plus it would look really cool.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2238 assigned to Wooble
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 9:10 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In this case, any announcement that "identifies the player", > regardless of whether it does so by name, necessarily unambiguously > specifies em; that the meaning of "identify". I statement of the form > "I award a Bean to Wooble" is equivalent to "I award a Bean to the > player who first assigned a judgment to CFJ 2238" if the statement is > made after this judgment is submitted; either one would successfully > award a Bean to me. Not if there is a non-negligible chance that the CotC's report of who first assigned a judgement is wrong, as is the case for asset reports (CFJ 1307).
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2238 assigned to Wooble
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > comex: you shouldn't purposely make things difficult for the > recordkeepors of badly-designed banks. Well, I suppose BobTHJ is the recordkeepor of the RBoA, but I don't see what that has to do with anything.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2238 assigned to Wooble
On 27 Oct 2008, at 13:10, Geoffrey Spear wrote: For practical reasons, such announcements SHOULD be avoided to prevent cascading of unknown-at-the-moment-but-platonically-unambiguous gamestate. tell that to comex -- ehird
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2238 assigned to Wooble
On 27 Oct 2008, at 13:34, Geoffrey Spear wrote: comex: you shouldn't purposely make things difficult for the recordkeepors of badly-designed banks. The RBoA has exactly the same problem, except BobTHJ controls almost every currency it trades in anyway. -- ehird
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2238 assigned to Wooble
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 9:14 AM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 27 Oct 2008, at 13:10, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > >> For practical reasons, such announcements SHOULD be avoided to >> prevent cascading of >> unknown-at-the-moment-but-platonically-unambiguous gamestate. > > tell that to comex comex: you shouldn't purposely make things difficult for the recordkeepors of badly-designed banks.
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2238 assigned to Wooble
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 3:18 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > == CFJ 2238 == > >When a person performs an action that takes parameters, e must >unambiguously specify the parameters. I proto-judge TRUE. When taking an action, the parameters must be specified in a way that is unambiguous. However, the caller's example does not seem to rely on the statement, so I'll clarify. > That is, if the Rules said "comex CAN award a player a Bean by > announcement", must I unambiguously specify which player, or merely > identify the player? In this case, any announcement that "identifies the player", regardless of whether it does so by name, necessarily unambiguously specifies em; that the meaning of "identify". I statement of the form "I award a Bean to Wooble" is equivalent to "I award a Bean to the player who first assigned a judgment to CFJ 2238" if the statement is made after this judgment is submitted; either one would successfully award a Bean to me. In CFJ 2065, the specification was ambiguous at the time the message of intent was sent because it referred to events that hadn't yet taken place and which couldn't be predicted in advance. When announcing intent to perform a dependent action, one must unambiguously identify the parameters of the action that will be taken dependently in the future, and they must be unambiguous at the time intent is announced. Thus, if the rules said "comex CAN award a player a Bean without objection", a statement by comex of "I intend, without objection, to award a Bean to the player who first assigned a judgment to CFJ 2238" would allow em to award me a bean without objection if e made the statement after this judgment is submitted, but would not allow em to award me a bean if e made that announcement earlier than the submission of this judgment. Similarly, in CFJ 1334, the problem was an issue of ambiguity, although in that case the ambiguity was absolute, and not dependent on time. In that case root announced eir intent to "select a different Bank Currency", giving neither a specification by name nor any sort of attempt to unambiguously identify a currency. This failed because the intent was ambiguous, as would an action-by-announcement of "I hereby select a different Bank Currency" with no attempt to announce which currency it was. Had e instead announced eir intent to select the Bank Currency e had the most of at the time e posted the intent, this would succeed if and only if e held more of one currency than of any of the others. A specification of this form could be unambiguous, and thus legal, even if at the time the intent was posted it was unclear to which currency this referred due to slow recordkeeping or pending CFJs that would potentially correct eir platonic holdings of each currency. For practical reasons, such announcements SHOULD be avoided to prevent cascading of unknown-at-the-moment-but-platonically-unambiguous gamestate.
