On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 16:54 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > But if rests are not fungible, the recordkeepor would be required to > track each rest as a distinct thing, and attempts to destroy rests > would have to match, e.g. "I hereby destroy the rest that was created > when I broke rule foo." We don't do that. > > There was a previous time this came up, when some of ehird's rests > were judged to be "different" (e.g. not apply to spending bans) > compared to others. That never came back to haunt us (yet?) > > But if it's found that assets that we've treated as fungible are > not in fact fungible, then all attempts to destroy rests, at least, > have failed. Right?
In the common case that a player attempts to destroy all eir Rests in one message, I would imagine it would be unambiguous which Rests were being destroyed. -- ais523
