ais523 wrote: > Ah, this might be where it breaks down in Agora. The point is that as I > haven't reached my CFJ limit yet, there's no way that the attempt to > call a CFJ can fail, except for some other part of the transaction > failing.
And in fact it does fail because of how it's disclaimered. > So in B this leads to a contradiction either way. Why would B resolve it differently? > And Y can't > be false, because in order for X to be performed, P must be true and > therefore Y must be true. And in fact it does work out that way. Compare a scam attempted several years back, along the lines of Proposal: Upon the adoption of this proposal, Rule 101 is not amended to read "<author> CAN amend any rule by announcement.". which pointed out that "not applying a proposal's changes" is not the same as "applying the opposite of a proposal's changes".
