On 11 August 2011 06:04, Pavitra <celestialcognit...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 08/10/2011 11:52 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 21:41, Pavitra <celestialcognit...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 08/10/2011 11:24 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: >>>> I destroy my copy of this Promise. >>> >>> I'm not sure this actually works. I vaguely remember an attempt to fix >>> this problem with legislation, which I think passed, but... >>> >>> R2166 (power 2): >>> An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by >>> announcement >>> >>> R2337 (power 3): >>> Creating and cashing promises is secured with power threshold 3; >>> any other modifications to promise holdings are secured with >>> power threshold 2. >>> >>> 2166 alone implies you can destroy a promise you hold. 2337 alone >>> implies you can't. >>> >>> R1030 puts rule power at higher precedence than >>> If all of the Rules in conflict explicitly say that their >>> precedence relations are determined by some other Rule for >>> determining precedence relations >>> which implies that R2337's attempt to only secure at power 2 basically >>> doesn't work. >> >> No, "secured with power 2" means "cannot be done except as allowed by >> rules with power 2 or greater." This creates no conflict, so >> precedence is irrelevant. > > All right, I'll buy that. >
Given that the promise, as written, seems not to work (or does it?) - it certainly doesn't do what it was supposed to, and has a typo in it which renders it malformed. Would it be an idea for the Horton to attempt to destroy all copies, and then I'll re-issue fixed versions. Arkady
