On Sat, 14 Oct 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
So overall, I'm a bit concerned with the separate uses of "pay" and "spend"
given that they now function differently and spend includes destruction. For
example, if someone says "I pay 1 AP to " then it would technically
fail, because "pay" is defined
So overall, I'm a bit concerned with the separate uses of "pay" and "spend"
given that they now function differently and spend includes destruction. For
example, if someone says "I pay 1 AP to " then it would technically
fail, because "pay" is defined as a transfer and AP can't be transferr
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 7:07 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> I considered that. There is a significant advantage to this though, in
>> that 1. people are likely to try to spend things that have to be
>> destroyed and 2. this means that rules will almost ha
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> I considered that. There is a significant advantage to this though, in
> that 1. people are likely to try to spend things that have to be
> destroyed and 2. this means that rules will almost have the intended
> effect. However, I agree that my current i
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 6:08 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Two points:
>
> - Make it a full mechanism, e.g. "to spend something, you announce what you're
> trying to purchase and indicate that it has a cost [option, do you have to
> specify
> the exact cost or not]." Then we can get rid a lot of th
> Amend Rule 2166, "Assets", by inserting the paragraph
>
> "To spend an asset is to pay or destroy it for the purpose of doing some
> other
> action or fulfilling an obligation; if the action would not be completed,
> the
> obligation would not be at least partially fulfilled, or more
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> Here's my draft of a fix to the spending definition. It defines
> spending as being whichever of transferring or destroying is needed to
> do an action, with a somewhat convoluted fallback (designed to attempt
> to capture intent) if the enab
Here's my draft of a fix to the spending definition. It defines
spending as being whichever of transferring or destroying is needed to
do an action, with a somewhat convoluted fallback (designed to attempt
to capture intent) if the enabling entity just said spending. Since
there's no point having t
8 matches
Mail list logo
