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"].