On Sat, 20 Oct 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 20 Oct 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> > > On Sat, 20 Oct 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > >
> > > > You can still use ratification, just be specific on date/time, e.g.
> > > >
> > > > The following document is hereby ratified:
> > > > {
> > > > On 18-Oct-2018, HH:MM:SS [time of Treasuror's Report],
> > > > G. had 42 coins and D. Margaux had 62 coins.
> > > > }
> > >
> > > Um, that's precisely the kind of document I claim is fishy to ratify.
> >
> > And honestly, we've done it before (or at least claimed to do so)
> > and I really still don't see the issue for it. Can you construct
> > an example where this causes problems?
>
> I forget whether the 42 coins correction is supposed to be an up- or
> downgrade, but assume the former.
>
> Imagine that between 18 Oct and the publishing of that document on the 20th,
> you had attempted to use those 42 coins to set in motion some hypothetical
> major scam, that on the 19th changed a _lot_ of other gamestate as a
> consequence.
>
> In that case, on 20th Oct, it would clearly be a smaller change to say "none
> of those big changes need adjustment, instead just say that the coin
> correction gets applied only for a second at the declared time and then
> changed back before the scam attempt starts."
>
> And thus Rule 1551 would forbid applying the more major gamestate correction
> that was probably intended, since it's not a minimal one at the calculation
> time of 20th Oct.
See I read "at the time the document was published" as the time for
minimization calculation (R1551):
if,
at the time the ratified document was published, the gamestate had
been minimally modified to make the ratified document as true and
accurate as possible.
At the instant the document is published, the minimal change is to say
"it's true" and not care about what flows after it (because you're not
required to minimize changes that would be implied as happening *after*
the original document date).
