Ah, I see now. So it should be something like:
A party to a contract CAN perform any of the following actions
as permitted by the contract's text:
* Act on behalf of another party to the contract.
* By announcement, destroy destructible assets in the
contract's possession.
* By announcement, transfer liquid assets in the contract's
possession.
?
(I'm not going to change my vote because I've _just_ managed to work out the
precarious tower of conditional votes and I don't want to confuse myself. But
it's nowhere near being adopted anyway.)
-twg
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 11:39 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu>
wrote:
>
>
> No. Actions on behalf between persons are governed by R2466, which says
> explicitly that the actor CAN use the same method the principal CAN. So
> if the Rules say that Person A CAN transfer a currency "by announcement"
> (which is covered in the Assets rules), and that Person B CAN act on
> behalf of Person A (covered by act-on-behalf and current Contract rules),
> then Person B CAN also do it "by announcement".
>
> But that only works between persons, not between person and contract.
>
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> > Well in that case it's similarly broken in the current rule as well, albeit
> > only for actions on behalf, not for currency transfers. No?
> > -twg
> > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> > On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 2:35 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sun, 25 Nov 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > 8138 twg 2.5 Access to contracts' assets
> > >
> > > I vote AGAINST 8138 and act on behalf of pokes to vote AGAINST 8138.
> > >
> > > > There seems to be no methods as required by rule 2125.
> > >
> > > I think "as permitted by a contract's text" may defer the method
> > > specification to the contract (i.e. "by contract" is the specified
> > > rules method, provided the contract says explicitly how to perform
> > > the task).
> > > However, this makes me realize what made me nervous: if that works,
> > > the method specified in the contract could be private, which would
> > > result in the contract being able to transfer currencies secretly
> > > (not informing the recordkeepor) if the deference works. And if the
> > > deference doesn't work, it's all broken anyway as Ørjan says.
