On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 6:00 AM Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > > On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > > > > > Also, I like the multiset. The wording seems to me to be a clean, > generic > > > > In my intuition, all multisets of assets are currently sets, because > there are > > no *truly* identity-free assets. But it might be better for other > people's > > intuition I guess. > > I think, legally, there are identity-free assets, unless I misunderstand > what > you mean by that? > > Corona gives me a coin. Aris gives me a coin. I then give a coin to > Trigon. There's no way of knowing/tracking/distinguishing whether Trigon > now has Corona's coin or Aris's coin. No, Ørjan is probably right. I think the difference is between identity and interchablity. Currencies are interchangeable (well, fungible, which means the same thing) so we can't tell the difference between them, but it doesn't mean that they don't have identity. As a real world example, let's say you have a penny and I have a penny. Neither of them is marked in any weird way, and be couldn't tell the difference between them. Then I use my penny to pay for something. Your penny hasn't been used to pay for something, only mine has, so they have separate identity. By contrast, if we both think of the number 1, we're both thinking of the exact same number, because it's a singleton. Even only currency instances with the same owner lacked identity, you wouldn't be able to transfer a paper without transferring all of it. This works fine so long as the set of assets is clearly described as a set of instances, because asset types are definitely singletons. -Aris > >
