On Fri, 2008-09-12 at 14:14 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 2:06 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-09-12 at 13:58 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
> >> Proto:
> >>
> >> Append the following text to Rule 2166 (Assets):
> >>
> >> Creation, destruction, and changes in ownership of assets not
> >> explicitly permitted by their backing document are secured, with
> >> a power threshold equal to the power of the backing document.
> >>
> >> I'll propose this once I verify that it doesn't break any of the
> >> existing assets.
> > Wouldn't this break contract-defined assets?
>
> That's what the phrase "not explicitly permitted by their backing
> document" is for; the backing document itself could still do whatever
> it liked with the assets.
>
> > (Can you secure something at power 0?)
>
> Sure, it just prevents that thing from being done by a non-instrument.
>
Another point: if a document defines an asset as a currency, does that
explicitly permit free exchanges of it?
--
ais523
