~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, Jeff Barber thinks he might have me, but isn't sure enough to dispense with his dunce cap. No need to worry Jeff, I am right, but your reasoning is pretty good, to wit: ... It might be possible to construct [the deal] as "I authorize you to pay the other party if they can produce a certificate that, when decrypted with this key, produces this text." The production of that certificate might only be accomplished through the cooperation of the on-line coroner... Clever, but you have already identified your weak point--the on-line coroner. More on this later. About my SCENARIO ONE (cheating escrow) Jeff offers: Why can't I damage your reputation? Assuming: a)there exists a public place to cast aspersions on your business Granted for the sake of argument. b)that I have a receipt digitally signed by you indicating that you accepted the payment and contract from the two parties Sorry, no can do. Sounds like being an accessory to a crime to me. I wouldn't put anything in writing signed by my known public key, and neither would anyone else. What if our True Names ever became known? Shit happens, you know. c)that I can prove I have "executed" my end of the bargain (pun intended) Here's the rub. What would constitute proof? Not just the fact that the victim was dead--even of foul play. How do you prove, in the "public place" given above, that *you* did the dirty deed? I don't think you can. (And surely, you wouldn't try to argue that you didn't pay me simply because the contract was for murder -- I don't think your potential future clients would relish giving their escrow service the power to judge the moral virtue of their contracts.) I don't know. Some clients would like it, some wouldn't. The market would decide. Don't get too theoretical here. Remember, the vast majority of people think murder is a Bad Thing. I don't think they would give a rat's ass whether or not a murder got paid. This would be *especially* if the escrow passed on some of the dirty money to them in the form of reduced escrow fees. :-) In response to my SCENARIO TWO (fake murder) Jeff wrote: ... in order for this scheme to work, the coroner must be in the business of regularly publishing signed and certified death certificates on the net.... I'm assuming therefore that the life insurance companies and the like will exert sufficiently strong influence to ensure that your scenario is extremely unlikely.... Oh Jeff, you were doing so fine there for awhile. The insurance companies would want to ensure *just the opposite* as long as they were in on the gag. I (the fake murderer) would go to the insurance company as well as the rich uncle. Why? Because they offer rewards for "murderers" who *don't* kill policy holders. The insurance companies, of course, all work closely with the on-line coroner to produce false death certificates to screw over murderers, their clients and/or the escrow companies that do such business. Contrary to popular belief, coroners are against death. No coroner in his right mind would have any problem fooling the bad guys. No electorate, or the private equivalent, would mind a coroner who lied for a Good Reason like helping to prevent murders. Now how do I get this thing off my head ...) No rush, Jeff, you might want to post again on this topic. :-) S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~