Re: TrustBucks

["Robert A. Rosenberg" <hal9001@panix.com>]

At 19:11 -0500 8/7/96, TrustBuckFella wrote:


>
>"Robert A. Rosenberg" <hal9001@panix.com> writes:
>>I fail to see why/how the initial swap of  TrustBucks(Alice) for
>>TrustBucks(Bob) followed by Alice returning the TrustBucks(Bob) [as
>>supposed payment] differs from her just paying with the TrustBucks(Alice)
>>in the first place [ie: He is willing to accept the TrustBucks(Alice) as
>>payment for the TrustBucks(Bob) that she will use to pay off her debt]. The
>>net result is the same - Bob has the same amount of TrustBucks(Bob) in
>> circulation and has an amount of TrustBucks(Alice) equal to Alice's payment
>> [the back and forth of the TrustBucks(Bob) is just playing "Right
>> Pocket/Left Pocket"].
>
>I admit, my analysis is probably flawed and I appreciate you challenging
>me on it. But I think it's more complex than the net result of single
>transactions.
>
>The way I figure it, if Bob could accept / not accept any variety of
>TrustBucks, then he can manipulate what varieties he reports being able
>to give in order to escape debts or manipulate what varieties he reports
>being able to accept in order to keep debts unpaid (for interest,
>foreclosure, etc.)
>
>    For instance, Alice is paying off her credit card, which pays Bob a
>    big 17% interest. Bob would rather not let her off early. "Nope, we
>    aren't accepting TrustBucks( Carol ) this week. TrustBucks( Dave )?
>    Let me see.... hmm... nope, sorry ma'am."
>
>    For instance, Alice has just eaten at Le Cafe Bob, and is about to
>    leave. Presented with the cybercheck, she "discovers" that she
>    hasn't got anything Bob is willing to accept. "Sorry 'bout that,
>    Bob. Ooh, hafta run! Bye bye."
>
>
>So it seems to me that the simplest course is to allow payment in
>exactly one variety, the payee's own. Bob can't credibly claim to not
>trust himself.
>
>You might object that the same problem is incurred anyways in
>TrustBucks. If Bob refuses to trade TrustBucks( Bob ) for TrustBucks(
>Carol ), isn't it the same thing as refusing TrustBucks( Carol )?
>
>I think it's subtly different, though. If Bob can accept other people's
>currency, he need not issue any himself. He can credibly refuse early
>payment, since no TrustBucks( Bob ) even exist. If Bob can only accept
>TrustBucks( Bob ), then Alice, who reports having no TrustBucks( Bob ),
>can't "innocently" incur debts she finds she cannot pay.

I admit that Bob can play games by altering the list of which currencies
(other than his own and Alice's) he is willing to accept from Alice. All I
was attempting to point out was that in the simple example you stated
(Alice does not have enough TrustBucks( Bob ) to pay off a debt to Bob so
she "Buys" the amount she needs by using TrustBucks( Alice ) and then
immediately returns the TrustBucks( Bob ) as her payment), the initial
transfer of TrustBucks( Bob ) is all smoke & mirrors (and a bookkeeping
trick) since he is still accepting payment in TrustBucks( Alice) not
TrustBucks( Bob ). The net result is that he is canceling some debt by
accepting the TrustBucks( Alice ) which he might later use to pay Alice for
something.