On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 12:01 PM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 19 Oct 2008, at 18:10, Ed Murphy wrote: >> >> This should be standardized in the contract. > > I agree. We already have one piece of precedent, though, we agreed that this > did not > work (well, it wouldn't have the INTENDED effect anyway but that is > irrelevant) due to > incorrectly specified rates (and it is not recorded anywhere):
I wouldn't call it agreement. Mostly I just decided not to call an equity case because the outcome where I deposited all my 7-crops and ineffectively transferred away all my coins was undesirable, and it suited me to let the more favorable outcome self-ratify. -root
