On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 15:03, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 4 Nov 2008, at 21:59, Roger Hicks wrote: >>> >>> (PBA) 2008-10-23 00:21 -- Murphy joins. >>> 2008-10-23 00:21 -- Murphy deposits 7 6 crops for ^140. (originally >> >> tried to deposit 8, but only had 7 - ed, 2008-10-27) >>> >>> 2008-10-23 00:21 -- Murphy transfers ^156 to RBoA. (fails, Murphy only >> >> has ^140) >> (This would be an effective RBOA deposit of 140 coins for 1400 chits. >> Murphy now has 0 Coins and 1882 chits) > > I am very uncertain what you are trying to tell me. What does "would" mean? > It's not? > > Also, i'm not sure how any of this can fail. It's all to do with RBoA's > coin-count, > which is tracked by pba.py... > Would as in "this resulted in an RBOA deposit of 140 coins". Although it has to do with coins it is an RBOA transaction, not a PBA one, therefore the RBOA rules for transactions apply, not the PBAs. Also, it makes the most sense to consider these two deposits to be effective for 140 coins and 43 coins respectively. To consider one or both failed in entirety would cause significant gamestate recalculations for the AAA.
Please go along with this. Doing something different would truly be a nightmare to calculate. BobTHJ
