On Wed, 2009-06-03 at 16:25 -0500, Benjamin Caplan wrote: > Furthermore, the ambiguity in your thought experiment is caused by the > text of the contract poorly specifying its internal mechanisms, whereas > the "unordered actions" argument is properly talking about shorthand in > a message itself that cannot be unambigously resolved into a > well-ordered expanded form. Message ambiguity is a matter of clear vs. > unclear synonyms. Contract ambiguity is an entirely different beast.
Hmm... I wonder if the Gnarlier Contract precedent has anything to do with this? Contracts with unknown/undetermined/paradoxical internal state have been done before, after all. The rules for asset transfer ambiguity, though, mostly seem to have been "whatever the recordkeepors and parties involved agreed to"; assets self-ratify very quickly, so this is unlikely to cause long-term trouble, but it's an ugly corner of the rules that maybe needs clarifying. -- ais523
