Quote from: zathras on December 17, 2013, 08:07:05 PM

Good point, I've been focusing too much on the section below that (where p&d is described). JR (I assume) changed the wording when merging the appendix and made it:

Quote

Ideally, all outputs should be the same (except the change).

The term 'ideally' implies that it's not enforced. My appendix as submitted didn't have the word 'ideally' in it so I thought I'd forgotten something somewhere and JR had added the term to show that it wasn't an enforceable requirement.

It's all starting to blur together Wink

have we had a conversation already about allowing/disallowing based on whether output amounts are the same?

Thanks!

Quote from: Tachikoma on December 18, 2013, 07:14:16 AM

Perhaps it's time to summon the magical being known as J.R. and let him make a decision on whether to p&r transactions that have unequal output amounts.

Quote from: zathras on December 18, 2013, 07:16:50 AM

...

Quote from: aTriz on December 19, 2013, 12:42:36 AM

....

Quote from: StarenseN on December 19, 2013, 05:47:20 PM

LoL this become creepy... Come on J.R. you can do it.

You guys are funny.

Sorry, I got way behind on email.

Yeah, I added the word "ideally". I was thinking that if the user is trying to do a Mastercoin transaction, and we can easily decode their intent, we should try to honor what they were trying to do.

HOWEVER, Class B transactions are only ever generated by Mastercoin clients, so it should be no problem to enforce stricter rules for them.

In summary, I think we should allow different amounts for class A, but not class B (or class C). We may need a change to the spec to clarify this.

Now, on to a much more important point: my periods of unavailability should not slow down this project. In the future, I'd like you guys to look to Tachikoma to make the final decision on points of interpretation of the spec (after giving everyone an opportunity to weigh in). If he says "let's ask J.R.", just remind him that J.R. put him in charge.

I will definitely weigh in on big/controversial changes, but this is not one, in my opinion, and we can't have you guys waiting on me! For instance, I will be on vacation and (mostly) offline 12/21 through 1/5, and therefore even LESS responsive than usual (plus it will probably take me a long time to catch up on email even once I am back).

For instance, if Tachikoma disagrees with my opinion above about class A/B/C, you can just go with what he says. The most important thing is that the implementations match, and that you don't have to wait for me.

Lastly, if you do need my attention for something, a direct email tends to get read and processed a lot quicker than forum post email notifications do. My email is: jr (dot) willett (at) gmail (dot) com

Thanks guys. Sorry for the long delay.