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.