Yeah, mine failed both under the believed paradigm and the real paradigm because I did silly typos. (mixed up shiny with floating value or something iirc).
Gaelan did wire me some monies though, as compensation. I'm pretty sure his attempted worked (under the believed paradigm) because it uses mays for destruction just like how mays were used for creation. On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 5:33 AM, Ørjan Johansen <oer...@nvg.ntnu.no> wrote: > On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > 1a. Whatever fix we undertake should _not_ somehow resurrect actions we >> had all understood, within the context of that mistaken reading of the >> rules, to be ineffective or impossible at the time they were performed. >> >> There are a few shiny transactions that clearly didn’t happen no matter >> what version of the rules you use, such as my attempt to claim a reward for >> a proposal which had not been assessed. >> > > As I recall, both of Cuddlebeam's Stamp scam attempts fall under this too, > but not Gaelan Steele's response. > > (Otherwise, your 1-3 are pretty much what I thought too.) > > Greetings, > Ørjan.
