Hal Finney wrote:
On the Wired "brain tennis" debate, http://www.braintennis.com/, Kawika
Daguio of the American Bankers Association wrote:
The real danger of cyberspace is that it could be the tragedy of
the commons in waiting. Technology alone won't provide participants
sufficient security for e-commerce to flourish. Law, tradition, and good
reputations and technology give rise to trust. Trust cannot be established
solely though technical protocols. And trust is not irrelevant.
What do you think he means about a "tragedy of the commons"?
I wonder if he just meant that there would be too many "commoners" trying
to engage in commerce, so you couldn't know who to trust?
Be assured that those already in control of commerce in this country and others have already written new laws 'in their head' concerning the future of eca$h. I predict that these laws will be for our 'protection,' but will have the curious effect of limiting the control of eca$h to the already rich and powerful. Some groups such as the Anguila Antagonists may be able to wrest a certain number of digital dollars from the grip of the system currently in place, but above a certain point, they will eaten up, either passively or aggressively (crushed or bought off). If 'outsiders' begin to make too large a dent in the main players' piece of the action, then we can expect to see events similar to the Junk Bonds fiasco, with the 'bad guys' set-up and knocked down like bowling pins. We can expect automatic taxation at the time of all eca$h transactions, as well as strict laws against anonymity in the transfer of eca$h. Freelance cryptographers are going to be outlaws, by decree of law. It is quite simply a matter of money (power and control being merely prerequisites for controlling money). TruthMonger