As of the most recent suggestions, somebody was proposing that two pieces of land could be owned by two people.  Keltham's not sure he could back them on this idea?  This sounds complicated.  If food has a tag pointing at two people, who gets to eat the food if the two of them disagree about who should eat it?  Do both of them have to agree on who eats the food, and announce that socially using multiple signatures, before it can be eaten?  If people end up in angry lasting disagreements, does the food rot?  That seems like a waste.

Keltham thinks the system should say that any socially constructed tag points to one place.  You could, maybe, allow people to announce a 'multi-signature transaction' whereby the tags shift to point to a new social construct that isn't a person, and instead can be a complicated imaginary construct like Fairbot or PrudentBot.  This new construct could say, for example, that both of the announcers will now own 'shares' in the land, and the food produced by the land will be tagged to the people who own the shares, in proportion to how many shares they own; and that these shares themselves now have ownership-tags and those tags can be moved around in 'multi-signature transactions'.

This new complicated imaginary construct, to actually be socially effective, would have to be something that all the people who are supposed to respect the tags and the 'multi-signature transactions', would be able to understand.  If somebody can't understand what the new complicated imaginary social construct does, they can't figure out who's socially allowed to eat the food.  There's obviously going to have to be a socially constructed 'specification-language' for imaginary constructs like these, and some 'programs' in the 'specification-language' could potentially fail to 'validate', because they don't fulfill all the conditions that society demands from a contract.

For instance, if you try to announce a complicated contract where, under some circumstances, food ends up with no ownership tag and nobody is allowed to eat it and it rots, the people around might tell you that your contract fails to 'validate' and that they won't respect this contract even if it's announced.  They might then, if they feel like being helpful, suggest a 'debugged' version of your contract in which all the food always ends up with a well-formed ownership 'pointer', and say that they'd respect that contract instead.

Anybody who tries to announce a contract in which they end up owning all the food in existence, would similarly be told that their contract fails to 'validate', because they haven't fulfilled the condition - in this whole imaginary system that everybody is maintaining inside their own imaginations - that you need 'signatures' from all the parties in a 'molecular transaction' who are currently deemed to own anything whose tag gets shifted around in the 'transaction'.

As of the most recent suggestions, somebody was proposing that two pieces of land could be owned by two people.  Keltham's not sure he could back them on this idea?  This sounds complicated.  If food has a tag pointing at two people, who gets to eat the food if the two of them disagree about who should eat it?  Do both of them have to agree on who eats the food, and announce that socially using multiple signatures, before it can be eaten?  If people end up in angry lasting disagreements, does the food rot?  That seems like a waste.

Keltham thinks the system should say that any socially constructed tag points to one place.

But you could, maybe, allow people to announce a 'multi-signature transaction' whereby the tags shift to point to a new social construct that isn't a person, and instead can be a complicated imaginary construct like Fairbot or PrudentBot.  This new construct could say, for example, that both of the announcers will now own 'shares' in the land, and the food produced by the land will be tagged to the people who own the shares, in proportion to how many shares they own; and that these shares themselves now have ownership-tags and those tags can be moved around in 'multi-signature transactions'.

This new complicated imaginary construct, to actually be socially effective, would have to be something that all the people who are supposed to respect the tags and the 'multi-signature transactions', would be able to understand.  If somebody can't understand what the new complicated imaginary social construct does, they can't figure out who's socially allowed to eat the food.  There's obviously going to have to be a socially constructed 'specification-language' for imaginary constructs like these, and some 'programs' in the 'specification-language' could potentially fail to 'validate', because they don't fulfill all the conditions that society demands from a contract.

For instance, if you try to announce a complicated contract where, under some circumstances, food ends up with no ownership tag and nobody is allowed to eat it and it rots, the people around might tell you that your contract fails to 'validate' and that they won't respect this contract even if it's announced.  They might then, if they feel like being helpful, suggest a 'debugged' version of your contract in which all the food always ends up with a well-formed ownership 'pointer', and say that they'd respect that contract instead.

Anybody who tries to announce a contract in which they end up owning all the food in existence, would similarly be told that their contract fails to 'validate', because they haven't fulfilled the condition - in this whole imaginary system that everybody is maintaining inside their own imaginations - that you need 'signatures' from all the parties in a 'molecular transaction' who are currently deemed to own anything whose tag gets shifted around in the 'transaction'.

As of the most recent suggestions, somebody was proposing that two pieces of land could be owned by two people.  Keltham's not sure he could back them on this idea?  This sounds complicated.  If food has a tag pointing at two people, who gets to eat the food if the two of them disagree about who should eat it?  Do both of them have to agree on who eats the food, and announce that socially using multiple signatures, before it can be eaten?  If people end up in angry lasting disagreements, does the food rot?  That seems like a waste.

Keltham thinks the system should say that any socially constructed tag points to one place.

But you could, maybe, allow people to announce a 'multi-signature transaction' whereby the tags shift to point to a new social construct that isn't a person, and instead can be a complicated imaginary construct like Fairbot or PrudentBot.  This new construct could say, for example, that both of the announcers will now own 'shares' in the land, and the food produced by the land will be tagged to the people who own the shares, in proportion to how many shares they own; and that these shares themselves now have ownership-tags and those tags can be moved around in 'multi-signature transactions'.

This new complicated imaginary construct, to actually be socially effective, would have to be something that all the people who are supposed to respect the tags and the 'multi-signature transactions', would be able to understand.  If somebody can't understand what the new complicated imaginary social construct does, they can't figure out who's socially allowed to eat the food.  There's obviously going to have to be a socially constructed 'specification-language' for imaginary constructs like these, and some 'programs' in the 'specification-language' could potentially fail to 'validate', because they don't fulfill all the conditions that society demands from a contract.

For instance, if you try to announce a complicated contract where, under some circumstances, food ends up with no ownership tag and nobody is allowed to eat it and it rots, the people around might tell you that your contract fails to 'validate' and that they won't respect this contract even if it's announced.  They might then, if they feel like being helpful, suggest a 'debugged' version of your contract in which all the food always ends up with a well-formed ownership 'pointer', and say that they'd respect that contract instead.

Any farmer who tries to announce a contract in which they end up owning all the food in existence, would similarly be told by other farmers that their contract fails to 'validate', because they haven't fulfilled the condition - in this whole imaginary system that everybody is maintaining inside their own imaginations - that you need 'signatures' from all the parties in a 'molecular transaction' who are currently deemed to own anything whose tag gets shifted around in the 'transaction'.

As of the most recent suggestions, somebody was proposing that two pieces of land could be owned by two people.  Keltham's not sure he could back them on this idea?  This sounds complicated.  If food has a tag pointing at two people, who gets to eat the food if the two of them disagree about who should eat it?  Do both of them have to agree on who eats the food, and announce that socially using multiple signatures, before it can be eaten?  If people end up in angry lasting disagreements, does the food rot?  That seems like a waste.

Keltham thinks the system should say that any socially constructed tag points to one place.

But you could, maybe, allow people to announce a 'multi-signature transaction' whereby the tags shift to point to a new social construct that isn't a person, and instead can be a complicated imaginary construct like Fairbot or PrudentBot.  This new construct could say, for example, that both of the announcers will now own 'shares' in the land, and the food produced by the land will be tagged to the people who own the shares, in proportion to how many shares they own; and that these shares themselves now have ownership-tags and those tags can be moved around in 'multi-signature transactions'.

This new complicated imaginary construct, to actually be socially effective, would have to be something that all the people who are supposed to respect the tags and the 'multi-signature transactions', would be able to understand.  If somebody can't understand what the new complicated imaginary social construct does, they can't figure out who's socially allowed to eat the food.  There's obviously going to have to be a socially constructed 'specification-language' for imaginary constructs like these, and some 'programs' in the 'specification-language' could potentially fail to 'validate', because they don't fulfill all the conditions that society demands from a contract.

For instance, if you try to announce a complicated contract where, under some circumstances, food ends up with no ownership tag and nobody is allowed to eat it and it rots, the people around might tell you that your contract fails to 'validate' and that they won't respect this contract even if it's announced.  They might then, if they feel like being helpful, suggest a 'debugged' version of your contract in which all the food always ends up with a well-formed ownership 'pointer', and say that they'd respect that contract instead.

Any farmer who tries to announce a contract in which they trade a cherry to themselves and end up owning all the food in existence, would similarly be told by other farmers that their contract fails to 'validate', because they haven't fulfilled the condition - in this whole imaginary system that everybody is maintaining inside their own imaginations - that you need 'signatures' from all the parties in a 'molecular transaction' who are currently deemed to own anything whose tag gets shifted around in the 'transaction'.

As of the most recent suggestions, somebody was proposing that two pieces of land could be owned by two people.  Keltham's not sure he could back them on this idea?  This sounds fraught.  If food has a tag pointing at two people, who gets to eat the food if the two of them disagree about who should eat it?  Do both of them have to agree on who eats the food, and announce that socially using multiple signatures, before it can be eaten?  If people end up in angry lasting disagreements, does the food rot?  That seems like a waste.

Keltham thinks the system should say that any socially constructed tag points to one place.

But you could, maybe, allow people to announce a 'multi-signature transaction' whereby the tags shift to point to a new social construct that isn't a person, and instead can be a complicated imaginary construct like Fairbot or PrudentBot.  This new construct could say, for example, that both of the announcers will now own 'shares' in the land, and the food produced by the land will be tagged to the people who own the shares, in proportion to how many shares they own; and that these shares themselves now have ownership-tags and those tags can be moved around in 'multi-signature transactions'.

This new complicated imaginary construct, to actually be socially effective, would have to be something that all the people who are supposed to respect the tags and the 'multi-signature transactions', would be able to understand.  If somebody can't understand what the new complicated imaginary social construct does, they can't figure out who's socially allowed to eat the food.  There's obviously going to have to be a socially constructed 'specification-language' for imaginary constructs like these, and some 'programs' in the 'specification-language' could potentially fail to 'validate', because they don't fulfill all the conditions that society demands from a contract.

For instance, if you try to announce a complicated contract where, under some circumstances, food ends up with no ownership tag and nobody is allowed to eat it and it rots, the people around might tell you that your contract fails to 'validate' and that they won't respect this contract even if it's announced.  They might then, if they feel like being helpful, suggest a 'debugged' version of your contract in which all the food always ends up with a well-formed ownership 'pointer', and say that they'd respect that contract instead.

Any farmer who tries to announce a contract in which they trade a cherry to themselves and end up owning all the food in existence, would similarly be told by other farmers that their contract fails to 'validate', because they haven't fulfilled the condition - in this whole imaginary system that everybody is maintaining inside their own imaginations - that you need 'signatures' from all the parties in a 'molecular transaction' who are currently deemed to own anything whose tag gets shifted around in the 'transaction'.

As of the most recent suggestions, somebody was proposing that two pieces of land could be owned by two people.  Keltham's not sure he could back them on this idea?  This sounds fraught.  If food has a tag pointing at two people, who gets to eat the food if the two of them disagree about who should eat it?  Do both of them have to agree on who eats the food, and announce that socially using multiple signatures, before it can be eaten?  If people end up in angry lasting disagreements, does the food rot?  That seems like a waste.

Keltham thinks the system should say that any socially constructed tag points to one place.

But you could, maybe, allow people to announce a 'multi-signature transaction' whereby the tags shift to point to a new social construct that isn't a person, and instead can be a complicated imaginary construct like Fairbot or PrudentBot.  This new construct could say, for example, that both of the announcers will now own 'shares' in the land, and the food produced by the land will be tagged to the people who own the shares, in proportion to how many shares they own; and that these shares themselves now have ownership-tags and those tags can be moved around in 'multi-signature transactions'.

This new persistent complicated imaginary construct, to actually be socially effective, would have to be something that all the people who are supposed to respect the tags and the 'multi-signature transactions', would be able to understand.  If somebody can't understand what the new complicated imaginary social construct does, they can't figure out who's socially allowed to eat the food.  There's obviously going to have to be a socially constructed 'specification-language' for imaginary constructs like these, and some 'persistent contracts' in the 'specification-language' could potentially fail to 'validate', because they don't fulfill all the conditions that society demands from a contract.

For instance, if you try to announce a complicated contract where, under some circumstances, food ends up with no ownership tag and nobody is allowed to eat it and it rots, the people around might tell you that your contract fails to 'validate' and that they won't respect this contract even if it's announced.  They might then, if they feel like being helpful, suggest a 'debugged' version of your contract in which all the food always ends up with a well-formed ownership 'pointer', and say that they'd respect that contract instead.

Any farmer who tries to announce a contract in which they trade a cherry to themselves and end up owning all the food in existence, would similarly be told by other farmers that their contract fails to 'validate', because they haven't fulfilled the condition - in this whole imaginary system that everybody is maintaining inside their own imaginations - that you need 'signatures' from all the parties in a 'molecular transaction' who are currently deemed to own anything whose tag gets shifted around in the 'transaction'.

Likewise if you said that the food produced by land gets owned in proportion to how much work two people put into it, society would tell you that your contract doesn't 'validate' because society can't directly observe how much work was put in.  Society needs all the terms in a contract to be 'evaluable' by society in order for the contract to validate; any fact referred to inside a 'conditional statement' needs to be one that society can observe, cheaply, by the time society needs to 'evaluate' the 'conditional'.

As of the most recent suggestions, somebody was proposing that two pieces of land could be owned by two people.  Keltham's not sure he could back them on this idea?  This sounds fraught.  If food has a tag pointing at two people, who gets to eat the food if the two of them disagree about who should eat it?  Do both of them have to agree on who eats the food, and announce that socially using multiple signatures, before it can be eaten?  If people end up in angry lasting disagreements, does the food rot?  That seems like a waste.

Keltham thinks the system should say that any socially constructed tag points to one place.

But you could, maybe, allow people to announce a 'multi-signature transaction' whereby the tags shift to point to a new social construct that isn't a person, and instead can be a complicated imaginary construct like Fairbot or PrudentBot.  This new construct could say, for example, that both of the announcers will now own 'shares' in the land, and the food produced by the land will be tagged to the people who own the shares, in proportion to how many shares they own; and that these shares themselves now have ownership-tags and those tags can be moved around in 'multi-signature transactions'.

This new persistent complicated imaginary construct, to actually be socially effective, would have to be something that all the people who are supposed to respect the tags and the 'multi-signature transactions', would be able to understand.  If somebody can't understand what the new complicated imaginary social construct does, they can't figure out who's socially allowed to eat the food.  There's obviously going to have to be a socially constructed 'specification-language' for imaginary constructs like these, and some 'persistent contracts' in the 'specification-language' could potentially fail to 'validate', because they don't fulfill all the conditions that society demands from a contract.

For instance, if you try to announce a complicated contract where, under some circumstances, food ends up with no ownership tag and nobody is allowed to eat it and it rots, the people around might tell you that your contract fails to 'validate' and that they won't respect this contract even if it's announced.  They might then, if they feel like being helpful, suggest a 'debugged' version of your contract in which all the food always ends up with a well-formed ownership 'pointer', and say that they'd respect that contract instead.

Any farmer who tries to announce a contract in which they trade a cherry to themselves and end up owning all the food in existence, would similarly be told by other farmers that their contract fails to 'validate', because they haven't fulfilled the condition - in this whole imaginary system that everybody is maintaining inside their own imaginations - that you need 'signatures' from all the parties in a 'molecular transaction' who are currently deemed to own anything whose tag gets shifted around in the 'transaction'.

Likewise if you said that the food produced by land gets owned in proportion to how much work two people put into it, society would tell you that your contract doesn't 'validate' because society can't directly observe how much work was put in.  Society needs all the terms in a contract to be 'evaluable' by society in order for the contract to validate; any fact referred to inside an 'expression' needs to be one that society can observe, cheaply, by the time society needs to 'evaluate' the 'expression'.

As of the most recent suggestions, somebody was proposing that two pieces of land could be owned by two people.  Keltham's not sure he could back them on this idea?  This sounds fraught.  If food has a tag pointing at two people, who gets to eat the food if the two of them disagree about who should eat it?  Do both of them have to agree on who eats the food, and announce that socially using multiple signatures, before it can be eaten?  If people end up in angry lasting disagreements, does the food rot?  That seems like a waste.

Keltham thinks the system should say that any socially constructed tag points to one place.

But you could, maybe, allow people to announce a 'multi-signature transaction' whereby the tags shift to point to a new social construct that isn't a person, and instead can be a complicated imaginary construct like FairBot or PrudentBot.  This new construct could say, for example, that both of the announcers will now own 'shares' in the land, and the food produced by the land will be tagged to the people who own the shares, in proportion to how many shares they own; and that these shares themselves now have ownership-tags and those tags can be moved around in 'multi-signature transactions'.

This new persistent complicated imaginary construct, to actually be socially effective, would have to be something that all the people who are supposed to respect the tags and the 'multi-signature transactions', would be able to understand.  If somebody can't understand what the new complicated imaginary social construct does, they can't figure out who's socially allowed to eat the food.  There's obviously going to have to be a socially constructed 'specification-language' for imaginary constructs like these, and some 'persistent contracts' in the 'specification-language' could potentially fail to 'validate', because they don't fulfill all the conditions that society demands from a contract.

For instance, if you try to announce a complicated contract where, under some circumstances, food ends up with no ownership tag and nobody is allowed to eat it and it rots, the people around might tell you that your contract fails to 'validate' and that they won't respect this contract even if it's announced.  They might then, if they feel like being helpful, suggest a 'debugged' version of your contract in which all the food always ends up with a well-formed ownership 'pointer', and say that they'd respect that contract instead.

Any farmer who tries to announce a contract in which they trade a cherry to themselves and end up owning all the food in existence, would similarly be told by other farmers that their contract fails to 'validate', because they haven't fulfilled the condition - in this whole imaginary system that everybody is maintaining inside their own imaginations - that you need 'signatures' from all the parties in a 'molecular transaction' who are currently deemed to own anything whose tag gets shifted around in the 'transaction'.

Likewise if you said that the food produced by land gets owned in proportion to how much work two people put into it, society would tell you that your contract doesn't 'validate' because society can't directly observe how much work was put in.  Society needs all the terms in a contract to be 'evaluable' by society in order for the contract to validate; any fact referred to inside an 'expression' needs to be one that society can observe, cheaply, by the time society needs to 'evaluate' the 'expression'.