On Mon, 1 Oct 2018, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
> On Sun, 2018-09-30 at 17:36 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Sun, 30 Sep 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > > Good attempt at a scam. I had already anticipated it, however, and
> > I think you
> > > will find you'd rather have submitted to the currency revaluation.
> >
> > Do you thing the transferring-to-contract actually worked? It takes
> > non-obvious (and frankly a bit iffy) logic to conclude that. I'm
> > curious on your logic on that, if it matches ours, that's some
> > confirmation that it's a reasonable reading.
>
> There was a moderately recent past ruleset under which you could
> transfer assets to contracts but the contracts couldn't transfer them
> back. (I was considering this trick myself as a method of dodging a
> tax, but realised that it wouldn't work.)
>
> I can't remember what the current ruleset is like, but I suspect it's
> changed since.
A key change that Aris made recently was changing R2483 from this
(referring to Coins and the other currencies):
They can be owned by Agora, players, contracts, and
facilities.
to this:
They can be owned by Agora, players, and facilities.
Now, Rule 2576 says:
If an asset's backing document
restricts its ownership to a class of entities, then that asset
CANNOT be gained by or transferred to an entity outside that
class [...] By default, ownership of an
asset is restricted to Agora, players, and contracts.
So, the question is, when R2483 says that Agora, players, and
facilities can own these currencies, is that an exceptio probat
regulam restricting all others (so that contracts can't get the
currencies) or does it add to the default list so that contracts
still can?
