On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Hang on for a second. I don't get what wrong with paying a fee of 0. The
> fee for a given action is defined. If I pay a fee of 0, then I haven't paid
> the specified fee for the action, so I can't do anything. The only case
> where it comes up is when the fee for an action is defined as 0, in which
> case we want the action to suceed. What am I misunderstanding?
If the wording is such that I must "transfer the fee to perform the action",
have I paid a fee of 0 if I transfer you nothing? I can say I did, but did
I actually "transfer the fee"?
The Assets rule reads:
An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. paid, given) by
announcement
it *doesn't* say that "no assets" CAN be transferred. So you CANNOT
transfer no assets while still having the legal effect of calling it
a "transfer".
This is exactly the principle as "if I flip a switch to its same value,
have I flipped a switch"?
