On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 2:21 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 4:17 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Another point: if a document defines an asset as a currency, does that >> explicitly permit free exchanges of it? > > No. Transferability is subject to modification by the backing > document, the same as for any asset. In the RPG example, I believe > the language in the proto is sufficient, although "fixed" is a > rules-defined term it's not required to use it to make an asset > nontransferable.
Sure it does. It explicitly defines it as a currency, the meaning of which is roughly "can be transferred, except as otherwise noted". That's like arguing that I haven't explicitly stated that an object is blue, when I have said that it is azure. -root
