On Sun, 19 Nov 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Unfortunately for the cleverness of the rule, I find that Rule 2166 is > explicit in defining “pay” as transferring “to another entity”. So, “to > pay” without a recipient isn’t a mechanism explicitly defined in the > rules. This may have worked in the past, but R2125 has a relatively new > strict requirement for mechanism specification: > > > A Restricted Action CAN only be performed as described by the > > Rules, and only using the methods explicitly specified in the > > Rules for performing the given action. > > And so to say you can do something by “paying” for it without adding a > recipient does not explicitly specify a mechanism to this new standard. > So as the Caller states, it is TRUE that it is impossible to issue > writs. TRUE.
Fun question: Did the change in strictness in R2125 (adopted Oct 22) break everything that uses "spend" because "spend" is still not defined?
