On 5/10/07, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We could tinker with that proto as needed to say that an owner can own
property, and that a trinket is a kind of property. I'd go into more
detail, but I seem to have misplaced Maud's original proto at the moment.
I'll have to get it from a
On 5/10/07, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We could tinker with that proto as needed to say that an owner can own
property, and that a trinket is a kind of property. I'd go into more
detail, but I seem to have misplaced Maud's original proto at the moment.
I'll have to get it from a
On May 10, 2007, at 7:48 PM, Zefram wrote:
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
I don't see "Trinket" or "Owner" in the SLR distributed today.
Maud's proto, which started this thread.
Duh. There it is.
We could tinker with that proto as needed to say that an owner can
own property, and that a trinke
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>I don't see "Trinket" or "Owner" in the SLR distributed today.
Maud's proto, which started this thread.
-zefram
On May 9, 2007, at 3:15 AM, Zefram wrote:
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
There are two relevant classes of entities: Owners and Property.
Pick some term other than "Owner". That word is already used to refer
to the entity that owns a particular Trinket.
-zefram
I don't see "Trinket" or "Owner"
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>There are two relevant classes of entities: Owners and Property.
Pick some term other than "Owner". That word is already used to refer
to the entity that owns a particular Trinket.
-zefram
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
On May 8, 2007, at 1:47 AM, Taral wrote:
On 5/8/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Each trinket has a switch for owner, with states nobody and
all
entities. The
owner switch of a trinket cannot be flipped
On May 8, 2007, at 1:47 AM, Taral wrote:
On 5/8/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Each trinket has a switch for owner, with states nobody and all
entities. The owner switch of a trinket cannot be flipped
except by the publication of a valid Notice of Transfer.
2.
On 5/8/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Not particularly. Fungibility is a pain to work with. Currencies were
always fundamentally fungible, but implicit rounding and the MUQ were
invented to make them more managable. I suggest using a strictly
quantised model this time round.
Fungibili
Zefram wrote:
> Not particularly. Fungibility is a pain to work with. Currencies were
> always fundamentally fungible, but implicit rounding and the MUQ were
> invented to make them more managable. I suggest using a strictly
> quantised model this time round.
"fungible" ne "divisible". By fun
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>It might be useful to define fungible instances for certain classes of
>trinkets, too.
Not particularly. Fungibility is a pain to work with. Currencies were
always fundamentally fungible, but implicit rounding and the MUQ were
invented to make them more managable. I suggest
Maud wrote:
> Each trinket has a switch for owner, with states nobody and all
> entities.
It might be useful to define fungible instances for certain classes of
trinkets, too.
-G.
Michael Slone wrote:
>I don't understand your complaint.
It looks like the owner switch has two valid states. One state is
"nobody", and the other state is "all entities".
-zefram
Taral wrote:
>2. I want to be the first to transfer a Trinket to itself.
I did (or at least attempted) that back when I left in a huff. CFJ 1063.
-zefram
On 5/8/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
1. I hate this terminology.
I don't understand your complaint.
--
C. Maud Image (Michael Slone)
"I flip such-and-such switch to mango"
-- Murphy, in agora-discussion
On 5/8/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Each trinket has a switch for owner, with states nobody and all
entities. The owner switch of a trinket cannot be flipped
except by the publication of a valid Notice of Transfer.
1. I hate this terminology. It's hard to dete
16 matches
Mail list logo
