On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Jonatan
Kilhamn wrote:
> As far as I can see, the flips I covered in my previous post are all
> that matters. Between the time it was published and the time it was
> made undistributable, it was made distributable at least once, through
> support. If it was also inc
2009/6/15 Geoffrey Spear :
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 5:28 AM, Jonatan
> Kilhamn wrote:
>>> Note to Conductor: this probably means that my attempt to spend 3
>>> notes to make this undistributable failed.
>>>
>> What intent is e talking about here? As far as I can see, the proposal
>> was published,
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 5:28 AM, Jonatan
Kilhamn wrote:
>> Note to Conductor: this probably means that my attempt to spend 3
>> notes to make this undistributable failed.
>>
> What intent is e talking about here? As far as I can see, the proposal
> was published, made distributable through support,
2009/6/15 Geoffrey Spear :
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 10:21 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>> I transfer one prop from myself to CotC Murphy for not getting all my ducks
>> in a row before the CFJ:
>>
>> Another gratuitous argument on my most recent CFJ:
>>
>> There was indeed at least one proposal that
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 10:21 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> I transfer one prop from myself to CotC Murphy for not getting all my ducks
> in a row before the CFJ:
>
> Another gratuitous argument on my most recent CFJ:
>
> There was indeed at least one proposal that went into the pool between
> the ann
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 15:14, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> Proposal: No More Distributability (AI = 2, II = 2)
> I intend, with three support, to make the above proposal Distributable.
>
To be quite honest, I like distributability, though I don't like the
with support mechanism (too much message traffic
6 matches
Mail list logo
