On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 1:51 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ian Kelly wrote:
> >The rule also says "Each asset has exactly one owner."
>
> That provision may well be broken due to the rule failing to provide a
> mechanism to enforce it.
I don't think it is. As comex has pointed out, "
Ian Kelly wrote:
>The rule also says "Each asset has exactly one owner."
That provision may well be broken due to the rule failing to provide a
mechanism to enforce it.
>If the Bank
>can't own it by default, then who does?
Since the rule's
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But that would still be a gain, thus prevented by the first half of the
> third sentence.
R2166 explicitly defines (defined?) gain:
To "gain" an asset is to have it created in one's possession.
In this attempted scam, no ob
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 12:43 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've been thinking about this a bit further, and it seems there are
> two possibilities. It seems clear that R2166 in some sense requires a
> defined asset to have a defined recordkeepor, but it's less clear
> whether a d
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If your logic is accepted, then contest-defined assets are not
> properly defined, since they fail to "define" the entity required to
> track them. Additionally, rests were not properly defined (since
> R2195 did not defi
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 12:39 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But that would still be a gain, thus prevented by the first half of the
> third sentence.
The rule also says "Each asset has exactly one owner." If the Bank
can't own it by default, then who does? At best, the rule is
int
root wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The claim being made is that unowned assets get transferred to the
>> Bank (by the second sentence) and then destroyed (by the second half
>> of the third), if the Bank is not an authorised owner. That's highl
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The claim being made is that unowned assets get transferred to the
> Bank (by the second sentence) and then destroyed (by the second half
> of the third), if the Bank is not an authorised owner. That's highly
> dubious; I th
Ed Murphy wrote:
>What auto-destroy mechanism?
Rule 2166:
Each asset has exactly one owner. If an asset would otherwise
lack an owner, it is owned by the Bank. If an asset's backing
document restricts its ownership to a class of entities, then
that asset CANNOT be gained
root wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 10:43 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 3/11/08, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > I considered something like this in my original scam, but it falls
>> > afoul of R105.
>>
>> Does it? I think "destroying" a rule is unambiguously equivalen
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 10:43 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/11/08, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I considered something like this in my original scam, but it falls
> > afoul of R105.
>
> Does it? I think "destroying" a rule is unambiguously equivalent to
> repealing it
On 3/11/08, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I considered something like this in my original scam, but it falls
> afoul of R105.
Does it? I think "destroying" a rule is unambiguously equivalent to
repealing it. Either way, the purpose of this was to prevent the
publishing of a contract sim
12 matches
Mail list logo
