On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 11:05 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk < ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-07-17 at 22:58 -0400, Aris Merchant wrote: > > It doesn’t matter; the rules define instances of a currency owned by > > the same person as completely fungible. > > The two readings lead to different outcomes: "I pay a fee of 1 coin, > the reason to do this was so that the coin I paid would be destroyed"; > "I pay a fee of 1 coin, when I do that it causes a coin to be > destroyed, meaning that I'm now down two coins". > > I suspect only one of these readings is a possible action under the > Rules, but they both seem to fit the standard English meaning of the > words. > > -- > ais523 > > Oh, fair point. I hadn’t considered that one might pay a fee to destroy a different coin. Sorry for missing that. -Aris
