Re: DIS: Spending shinies

2017-10-13 Thread Owen Jacobson
Contracts, basically. However, I still have the draft around and since contracts seem to be in limbo, I’ll put it up again and try to get it under vote. If we need escrow we can always reinvent it. -o > On Oct 12, 2017, at 9:46 PM, Aris Merchant >

Re: DIS: Spending shinies

2017-10-12 Thread Aris Merchant
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 6:40 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Where does it say that a transfer recipient defaults to agora? By > my reading that would fail for being ambiguous. I mean that spending might be a particular kind of transferring that defaults to Agora. It would

Re: DIS: Spending shinies

2017-10-12 Thread Kerim Aydin
Where does it say that a transfer recipient defaults to agora? By my reading that would fail for being ambiguous. Also, my recent frustrations is several folks (not just you) have been working on Big Ideas so we've deferred making minor fixes like that, But the Big Ideas have been delayed and

Re: DIS: Spending shinies

2017-10-12 Thread Aris Merchant
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 6:23 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Fri, 13 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > Is it just me, or is spending a shiny currently undefined? > > No, we had a discussion of that last month, when I brought it > up. > > There was a pseudo-conclusion that

Re: DIS: Spending shinies

2017-10-12 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > Is it just me, or is spending a shiny currently undefined? No, we had a discussion of that last month, when I brought it up. There was a pseudo-conclusion that spent couldn't be a synonym for paid, because paid requires specifying the recipient. So

DIS: Spending shinies

2017-10-12 Thread Alexis Hunt
Is it just me, or is spending a shiny currently undefined?