~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, Tim May made some good comments about my post, albeit late through no fault of his own. (What is it with Netcom, anyway? Some of you folks on Netdown ... er ... Netcom ought to look into CRL. I've had very little trouble with them, and they are available in parts of the South Bay.) Some of his points have raised by others, so I'll focus in on just a few of Tim's points. I wrote:

Would you do business with a escrow that was the bag man for contract murders? I wouldn't, you wouldn't and the vast majority of people in the world wouldn't. That wouldn't stop some escrows from performing that service, but it would run up the cost.... the costs rise high enough, profitable opportunities are created for false escrows to enter the business....

To which Tim responded: I can't follow Sandy's logic here. That I wouldn't use such services, that Sandy wouldn't, etc., is hardly persuasive. Contract killings happen today, after all.... The "etc." Tim left out, is very important. Most people would be revolted by an escrow company that facilitated murders. They would not do *any* escrow business with such parasites. This would mean such companies would have to make *all* their money as escrows for various illegal/immoral activities. Statistically, here just isn't much of market for contract killings; even less for contract killing escrows. Sandy says this "would run up the cost." But from what basis? I've made no predictions about the costs, either with or without the participation in such markets by Sandy or me! Repeat after me: The whole world is watching, the whole world is watching, the whole world... If the market is tiny and the world otherwise boycotts you, the only way to make a living offering such a service (crime escrows) is to charge your clients big bucks. That's how the costs go up, irrespective of whether or not Tim and Sandy are in the market. What the costs will be is unknown to me, and I don't plan to try to forecast the costs. All I claim is that anonymous escrow services "solve" the specific problem raised earlier about one or more of the parties welshing on the contract. A kind of 'clearing' mechanism. Yes, the solve the problem *if they exist*. You have merely posited "anonymous escrow services" as a _fait_accompli_. In the real world, there will only be "anonymous escrow services" for murder, if they make sense economically. I don't think we have to worry about such services supported by altruists. In any case, there are in fact "escrow agents" today for contract murders. Mob families act in this way, putting the "full faith and credit" of their organizations behind such hits.... The mob families are not cryptographically pseudonymous, naturally, but... True, but is exactly *because* they are not cryptographically pseudonymous that they usually abide by their ... honor. They are flesh and blood people, with known identities, addresses, families, etc. Their reputation *does* matter because they are more vulnerable to physical retaliation than is some disembodied e-mail address. Tim wrote several things about SCENARIO ONE (crooked escrow) that I covered in responses to other people. One thing not covered was address by Tim, thusly: He then says: "Al's Anonymous Escrow" announced they were holding money for this job, as you can see. I did the job, as you can see from the digitized images I took at the scene, and now Al won't pay up. Come now Tim, "digitized images"? Like when I killed that lawyer in Jurassic Park with my robot T. Rex. I think the murder will have to do better than that. ...fully pseudonymous agents can still present evidence to the court of public opinion and have their reputations influenced positively or negatively. And in the court of public opinion, the pseudonymous agent would be pilloried for his actions. As a said in a previous post, no one will give a rodent's rear for the contract murderer. Most folks, including me, would applaud the escrow that didn't pay the murderer. I doubt few clients would take their business elsewhere. And as before, the escrow could even pass the savings along to its customers as reduced rates. Works for me. If an escrow agent does this very often, he'll lose all his business. Opportunity for an agent who takes his reputation more seriously to then gain market share. Nonsense. You are thinking like an engineer, not a psychologist or businessperson. People would not take their business away from an escrow who was honorable in every other dealing except for murder. The market has no trouble making such ethical/moral distinctions. Just as with Swiss banks ... Rolled over on Marcos without any discernable loss of business. (I'll just make the aside that Sandy's arguments apply to bookies the same way... No it doesn't. There is nowhere the universality of repugnance towards gambling as there is towards murder. It's a numbers game. Welch on a bet and lots of people--even those who don't like gambling--will disapprove and your reputation will suffer. The number of people who would take their business elsewhere just because you didn't pay a MURDERER (for god's sake), is statistically insignificant. ... I'm not persuaded by Sandy's arguments that the threat of cheaters is sufficient to derail these markets. It hasn't derailed them in the real world. It won't in the less traceable but even more reputation-critical crypto world. That, again, is because the real world does not have the self same anonymity Tim thinks will allow for easy contracts for murder. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Crypto giveth, and it taketh away. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~