Samuel Mc Kee wrote:
> If one spend is repudiated, then there's a precedent for repudiating
> possibly hundreds of spends. This can't be done just on someone's say-so,
> but will require an (expensive) investigation into each one. The
> investigators will not be omniscient, so however much they try to err on the
> side of non-repudiation, they will inevitably repudiate an ocassional spend
> that should have been left alone. The predictable, concrete non-repudiation
> policy will then have been replaced with a fuzzy,
> gosh-I-hope-nobody-can-tell-a-convincing-lie-about-me uncertainty about
> whether our money will still be in our accounts the next morning. That's how
> PayPal works.
The choices could basically be summarized thus:
a) Repudiate, erase value that by now probably belongs to some innocent
third party, erase gold sometimes by mistake, destabilize the whole
e-gold economy, cause market-makers to massively increase commission.
Allow fools to be secure in getting away with their stupidity.
b) Refuse to repudiate. The Barnum type walks away with the loot, as he
almost certainly would anyhow. The sucker recieves an expensive but well
deserved lesson in Caveat Emptor and doing his own homework.
I favour "b".
---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
