At 12:23 PM -0400 10/23/02, Patrick Chkoreff wrote: >At 11:10 AM 10/23/2002 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... >>I believe ultimately this will make for a BETTER tighter type of merchant, >>as ultimately there is no room for everything-means-nothing slop. A >>merchant that did do something "bad' would be more catastrophically >>punished for it; consumers would be much more choosy. > >Intriguing! Serving the customer is one thing, but prostitution is going a >bit too far, eh? :-) Bad analogy though, because as I understand it the >prostitute demands her money up front. So I've heard. :-)
I think this analogy can actually help us to better understand things. The oldest profession demands money up-front for good reasons, and no-doubt because of...uh...hard experience. <Jim ducks flying rotten fruit!> Joking aside, this is totally rational behavior on their part. I've failed to see throughout this thread how e-gold spends aren't reversible. Wanna reverse a spend? Spend it back to the spender! Presto! Your spend is reversed, and each party is only out the low spend fees. What we're talking about instead is *repudiable* payments. There are plenty of varieties of these to choose from, and I'm with JP in that I *like* the effects of non-repudiable spends, on balance. No system, of course, is going to look perfect in every instance. JMR --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.
