Ray & Tim, easy to see who said what: Bear:
As presented, I think she's probably right. Nobody in conventional business is going to want to do a deal with someone when they can't create a legally enforceable contract.
Widespread black markets, for drugs, betting, etc., suggest otherwise.
There are many markets out there which do not rely on the official court system to enforce contracts for.
Again, I'm trying to cut out all the lawyers, contracts and so forth, there are other ways to regulate, but it's all variables: a combination of nym alternative dispute resolution, escrow concepts (money, and ID) and reputational systems. Participants can choose disclosed, an agency-infomediary or a "zeroknowledge" participation level, and define who they are comfortable dealing with... just what you guys talk about, and just like real life.
When you talk about a one-time transaction, it pretty much has to involve something whose value can be ascertained ON THE SPOT. otherwise, there is either a continuing relationship that can't be unilaterally broken (ie, they know where you live) or there is no deal. The value of information (other than entertainment value) is not generally ascertainable on the spot, because if you don't have at least some of the information, you can't check something that claims to be the information. Also, you often have to do a couple days work figuring out information formats and problems before you can even do your checking against it, particularly with financial data.
Exactly, and this is where I run into trouble. However, as long as SOMEBODY is accountable, the goat of the wrongdoer isn't always required for the transacting party. I am more concerned about policing the community, but I do think it's possible outside of traditional legal and transactional frameworks, reverting back, as Tim made reference to (as I have I, damnit) the old polycentric merchant society frameworks.
Real business involves lasting relationships. You don't want to be owed money, or merchandise either, by someone who can just shed the pseudonym and disappear.
And "reputation capital" that would counteract that point to some extent depends on maintaining a consistent traceable pseudonym as someone who does something illegal, for decades, without getting linked to it.
As with Aimee, you haven't thought outside the box.
You being a lawyer larvae, and Aimee being an official lawyer, is this something that _comes_ from being a lawyer, or is this something that causes a person to give up doing something real, like programming or designing chips, to _become_ a lawyer?
Tim, I don't know why you're calling me "Lawyer larvae". I'm not in Law school, nor have I ever been.
What Aimee and I both seem to be pointing out here is that while it is *possible* for people to do business anonymously/pseudonymously, a whole new economy would have to grow up that way in order for it to become routine. You are really and truly talking about building from scratch with effectively no interface to the way business is currently done. I can respect that, but keep in mind that all the peripheral mechanisms of the way business is currently done will be trying to stomp the "aberration" out.
Eh, I was just trying to envision a live pitch opportunity. An intelligence development contract seemed in the ballpark for serious bank, and privatization changes might be breeding some opportunity. Clearly, an open source information mercantile system is already making the intelligence agenda. I find it "not unthinkable" that Tim's agora will first see the light of day as part of a legitimate intelligence endeavor. ~Aimee