On 8/3/2019 11:06 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> On 8/3/19 1:56 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>> In the current situation, Clause 3 of the contract successfully defines a
>> currency. By default (if there were no further clauses), the POSSIBLE
>> currency actions are in R2577, and include destruction and transfer of
>> currencies by announcement, but not creation. Clauses 4 and 5, taken as a
>> whole, fail to specify when and how an asset CAN be created, so no
>> creation is possible (again, that the default agrees with Clause 5 is a
>> side-effect). Therefore, this CFJ is FALSE.
>>
> Although I'm disappointed, I don't think I can poke a hole in this one.
>
> Maybe I will end up CFJing on the agent of ratification w/o objection.
Yeah, when I set this up with you I thought it would be a long discussion
about whether contract precedence should be forwards or backwards or whether
there were other general interpretation principles that could apply (with a
good chance of a "nope - this is paradoxical" result). The importance of
the exact Rule link language ('specify') only occurred to me this morning.
-G.
