On Jan 7, 2008 5:13 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I hereby assign root as judge of CFJ 1854.
>
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1854
>
> ============================== CFJ 1854 ==============================
>
> Type: inquiry case
>
> Statement: It is possible to spend VCs that one does not own.
>
> Initiator: avpx
>
> ========================================================================
The argument that has been advanced in favor of the truth of this
statement is that an expenditure is a form of loss, thereby permitting
Rule 2126/48 to waive the loss when the spender has no VCs.
Rule 2166/2 defines "to lose" an asset as "to have it destroyed from
one's possession". The verb "spend" is not defined by the rules, but
a search on dictionary.com gives these asset-related definitions:
* to pay out, disburse, or expend; dispose of (money, wealth,
resources, etc.)
* To pay out (money)
It also includes "to use up, consume, or exhaust"; but this is given
as a less common, not specifically asset-related definition, so I will
endeavor to use the common definition above, "to pay out".
Based on this definition, it is evident that "spending" VCs is
actually a form of transfer. It is not a form of destruction and
therefore not a loss. The question then arises that asks to what
entity VCs are transferred when spent, but R2166/2 answers this
question readily: "If an asset would otherwise lack an owner, it is
owned by the Bank." Thus I find CFJ 1854 to be FALSE.
I have previously a separate argument on this case, which I will quote
in support of this conclusion:
Accepting for the moment that spending a VC is considered a means
of losing it, if you attempt to spend a VC that you don't have,
then the loss is waived. Thus you have failed to lose anything,
and so you have also failed to spend it.
-root
