From: "Robert A. Rosenberg" <hal9001@panix.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 18:20:58 +0800
To: TrustBuckFella <TrustBuckFella@nowhere.com>
Subject: Re: TrustBucks
In-Reply-To: <64gf4trmj9@nowhere.com>
Message-ID: <v03007800ae2c81fb3823@[166.84.220.80]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 1:11 -0500 8/2/96, TrustBuckFella wrote:


>Examples: Say Alice wants to pay Bob in TrustBucks, and Bob agreed to
>accept payment in this form. Alice has several options for paying him.
>
>*       Alice already has some TrustBucks( Bob ).
>
>                Alice pays Bob.
>
>*       The amount is small enough that Bob trusts Alice directly.
>
>                Alice and Bob swap TrustBucks( Alice ) for TrustBucks( Bob )
>                Alice pays Bob.
>
>        I know this looks like an extra piece of complexity, but it's
>        really not. By insisting that only TrustBucks( Bob ) are payment
>        to Bob, we insure that Bob can't manipulate what currency he
>        will accept to his advantage, which would otherwise be a
>        problem. For instance, Bob cannot refuse to make good on his
>        debts while accepting other people's money.

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"].