Why does everyone think that the law must immediately be invoked when double spending is detected?
It's obvious I gave that impression. I regret the error. I wasn't referring just to you, but to what is unfortunately and surprisingly a general reaction to protocol failure in money protocols, namely, "lynch the bastard!". I assure you, as recently as last week I had the same reaction from someone at DigiCash. Anyone remember the rant of mine a few months back about language and about how imputing motive into protocol makes you stupid? Well, here's a good example of that connection in action. The dominant term in the literature for the agent of double-spending is a "cheater". And cheaters must not prosper, right, so let's punish them. That kind of reasoning leads without further thought to a reliance on law enforcement and identity. If someone deliberately double (or million) spends, then they should get busted for fraud. Period. If there's a charge for attempting a deposit, and this charge is paid, even a million times, do you still think such transactions should be considered fraud? Turn fraud attempts from a security cost to a profit center. Eric