I don't remember that, but if you say so (and if there was a CFJ on it). I'm happy to accept the card if I have to.
On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > That's not the situation I mean. I mean there was a transaction we > tested where someone did something like: > > "I pay 2 shinies to make a stamp; I pay 3 shinies to make a stamp." > and it failed to make a 5-shiny stamp (and it didn't come down to > exact wording, it was that it was found that you can't make these > kinds of "down payments"). > > On Wed, 8 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: >> Well, both can be right. O's interpretation has reversed some >> transactions where, for example, someone was unable to buy a stamp and >> said "I transfer 5 shinies to agora to buy a stamp". Those 5 shinies >> could never have, in any case, led to buying a stamp, so the >> transaction was reversed on that basis. The 1 shiny in my case is a >> down-payment: part of a payment that will eventually total my debt to >> Agora for the Estate. >> >> On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: >> > >> > >> > 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 >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> From V.J. Rada >> > -- >From V.J. Rada
