That's a reasonable common interpretation, I agree. And your argument is plausible. But it's exactly *not* how we interpreted recent transactions.
To be clear, I would look back at those recent precedents (I don't offhand remember which cases or payments) to find the reasons for those judgements before coming to a conclusion on this one. Both can't be right. Also: didn't we have a long discussion on the definition of "spend" and "paid" and so forth that resulted in a proposal? I thought we clarified some of those definitions did it never actually get proposed/distributed? On Wed, 8 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > I would disagree. If you said, for example "I'm eating all this fast > food for the purpose of gaining 10 kg", that wouldn't be an untrue > statement, even if the food was normal-sized and not 10 kilograms > heavy. > > On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, 8 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > >> 1: Make transactions from the Head to Agora of exactly 1 shiny, for > >> the sole purpose of paying for an Estate. > > > > Counterarguments: > > > > We've previously found that if you try to pay for something, and fail, > > the entire transaction fails. > > > > So the first attempt to pay 1 shiny fails because it doesn't accomplish > > it's purpose, etc. > > > > I believe o has been a strong proponent of this view, as e has repeatedly > > re-done official transactions because the amount hasn't been right. > > > > (Yes, I see that the difference in wording in Auctions versus other > > rules makes this a more borderline argument). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada >
