An authorized share is a share that does not get dividends as it is not held privately (funding shares). S.DICE shares cannot be issued again, they already were. If they were issued, it would dilute the others share out of dividends. There are more shares now trading on MPEx. That's it. I don't consider it share issuance/dilution. 100 million shares were issued of which 100 millions were issued to evoorhees. He then sold 10 million on MPEx. He's now selling 5 million more.
I believe the issuance statement is meant to say than 100 million are to be issued on MPEx or on anywhere else, which would dilute the 100 million already being issued on MPEx.
There's a difference between creating/issuing shares in a company in the abstract and actually issuing them on an exchange.
You need to look at the two sentences together:
"The representatives of SatoshiDice solemnly promise and warrant never to issue more shares on any other venue nor in any way to dilute existing shareholders at any point in the future. All future share issuance will be made only a) subject to approval by MPEx and b) at a price no less than the higher of the 1 day average price and the 30 day average price then current on MPEx ; "
The first sentence explicitly prevents authorising or issuing more than 100 million shares (as, by definition that would dilute).
Are you seriously claiming that the second sentence then defines the price at which shares
which have just been defined as impossible to create can be sold?
Yes - in theory more shares COULD be created by a split. But the pricing can't apply to that due to the very nature of a split.
If 100 million shares had been created on MPEx, 90 million of them given to evoorhees to do what he wanted with and 10 million sold then I'd agree with you. But that's not what happened.
10 million shares were issued on MPEx representing entitlements in respect of 10 million underlying off-exchange shares. Issuing new MPEx shares in an action seperate to changing the underlying shares - and the only act to which the second sentence can logically apply.
I repeat: Give a scenario that is otherwise in accordance with the contract where you believe the pricing restriction would apply?