"The Notary CAN destroy a device Without Objection, but SHOULD NOT
do so unless the device no longer serves any significant purpose."
On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 12:27 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 10/31/21 20:59, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
> > On Sun, 2021-10-31 at 17:47 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
> > wrote:
> >> The self-destruct timer is hard to resist:
> >>> The time window of a device is W days, where W is the value
> >>> explicitly stated by the device, or 60 if the device does not
> >>> explicitly state a value. A device ceases to exist at the end of
> >>> its time window.
> >> (not sure I'd support it tho).
> > I'm not entirely sure what would happen if the self-destruct expired -
> > it would cause the device to cease to exist, but it couldn't modify the
> > rules defining it (it doesn't meet R105's requirement to post the full
> > text of the change).
> >
> > Rule 2654 does win precedence battles with rule 2655, which is the more
> > interesting way round for it to happen (if the numbers were the other
> > way round, I'd say this change would unambiguously do nothing).
> >
> > The *other* interesting thing about this is, of course, that it only
> > works while the device is in a given position, which complicates
> > matters still further (especially if the Device doesn't exist at the
> > time).
> >
> > As a side note, "ceases to exist at the end of its time window" appears
> > to be a point check - it wouldn't cause it to cease to exist *after*
> > the end of its time window. The Device will have existed for more than
> > 60 days by the time the intent can be resolved, but it's unclear at
> > what point in time the time window would start.
> >
> > All in all, a very fertile ground for CFJs! The main drawback would be
> > a risk of accidentally ending things early, but it couldn't destroy the
> > rules defining the Device - just potentially the Device itself, and we
> > could presumably recreate it by proposal.
> >
>
> I don't think the sole instance of a singleton switch can be permanently
> destroyed by an instantaneous destruction. Even if the destruction
> worked, the rule defining the switch should immediately recreate it (in
> the same way that it immediately creates it when first coming into
> effect after being enacted).
>
> --
> Jason Cobb
>
> Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
>
>
--
--
R. Lee
