To which Black Unicorn responded:

...

I have US$ 50,000 that says it didn't. Care to take me up on it?

At 09:07 AM 4/21/96 -0700, Sandy Sandfort wrote:

Though I think the wager offered way out of line, I wish that this mechanism for handling disputes were used more often on the Cypherpunk list. It's easy for folks to shoot their mouths off when they can do so at virtually zero cost. The results are endless flame wars with only rare resolution. When money is at stake, there is an incentive to be more temperant in ones claims.

This mechanism was tried extensively on the extropians list, and in my judgement it was totally unsuccessful. When money is at stake, flames concerning ill considered factual claims are replaced by power moves to manipulate the system, obtain corrupt adjudicators, and intimidate, exclude and silence dispute in order to win, or conceal evasion of, ill considered bets.

I would be interested to see if Jim Bell and Black Unicorn could engage in a "friendly" wager on the question in point for the nominal sum of, say, US$100. Perhaps they can cooperate to frame their dispute in unambiguous terms, mutually agree upon an escrow agent and pick a referee or other resolution mechanism to decide their "case." Wouldn't that be something?

This would work at $100. But the temptation is always to escalate the bet, to win by bluffing, with the result that the dispute is escalated, rather than resolved. At $500, our problem would become much worse, rather than much better. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd@echeque.com