ehird wrote:
> On 27 Oct 2008, at 14:28, comex wrote:
>
>> I think there's just a fundamental problem trading assets with
>> different recordkeepors. I repeat that automation would be nice-- one
>> entity could effectively recordkeep all assets anyone cared to make,
>> removing the current const
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 08:33, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Proto: Agora becomes a codenomic.
>
> Proto: PNP becomes the Accountor, someone besides me writes the code
> to make that work, and all contracts
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 27 Oct 2008, at 14:33, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>
>> Proto: PNP becomes the Accountor, someone besides me writes the code
>> to make that work, and all contracts are amended to remove the
>> recordkeepors of the assets they
On 27 Oct 2008, at 14:33, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
Proto: PNP becomes the Accountor, someone besides me writes the code
to make that work, and all contracts are amended to remove the
recordkeepors of the assets they define.
Proto: Agora absorbs PerlNomic.
--
ehird
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Proto: Agora becomes a codenomic.
Proto: PNP becomes the Accountor, someone besides me writes the code
to make that work, and all contracts are amended to remove the
recordkeepors of the assets they define.
On 27 Oct 2008, at 14:28, comex wrote:
I think there's just a fundamental problem trading assets with
different recordkeepors. I repeat that automation would be nice-- one
entity could effectively recordkeep all assets anyone cared to make,
removing the current constraints on the asset system.
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 9:40 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The RBoA has exactly the same problem, except BobTHJ controls almost every
> currency it
> trades in anyway.
I think there's just a fundamental problem trading assets with
different recordkeepors. I repeat that automation
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 9:10 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In this case, any announcement that "identifies the player",
> regardless of whether it does so by name, necessarily unambiguously
> specifies em; that the meaning of "identify". I statement of the form
> "I award a Bean
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> comex: you shouldn't purposely make things difficult for the
> recordkeepors of badly-designed banks.
Well, I suppose BobTHJ is the recordkeepor of the RBoA, but I don't
see what that has to do with anything.
On 27 Oct 2008, at 13:10, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
For practical reasons, such announcements SHOULD be avoided to
prevent cascading of
unknown-at-the-moment-but-platonically-unambiguous gamestate.
tell that to comex
--
ehird
On 27 Oct 2008, at 13:34, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
comex: you shouldn't purposely make things difficult for the
recordkeepors of badly-designed banks.
The RBoA has exactly the same problem, except BobTHJ controls almost
every currency it
trades in anyway.
--
ehird
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 9:14 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 27 Oct 2008, at 13:10, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>
>> For practical reasons, such announcements SHOULD be avoided to
>> prevent cascading of
>> unknown-at-the-moment-but-platonically-unambiguous gamestate.
>
> tell that to c
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 3:18 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> == CFJ 2238 ==
>
>When a person performs an action that takes parameters, e must
>unambiguously specify the parameters.
I proto-judge TRUE. When taking an acti
13 matches
Mail list logo
