Re: Escrow
Bitcointalk · 2010-08-11 01:30:02 UTC
【引用 jgarzik 于 2010年8月10日 18:53:57（https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=750.msg8566#msg8566）】
"去问问现实中的商家老板，愿不愿意告诉他们的顾客：钱有可能永远丢失，双方都无法挽回。"
这么说好像钱会莫名其妙丢失，双方想合作也拿不回来。
预付款买东西，钱也拿不回来。消费者对此似乎挺能接受。这并不比那更糟。
任何一方随时都可以选择把钱释放给对方。
【引用 nelisky 于 2010年8月10日 20:20:36（https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=750.msg8585#msg8585）】
"但烧钱方案虽然能很好地防止经济上划算的欺诈，却无法防止报复，一旦一方不诚实，大家都会输。我肯定不会支持这个。"
那你一定也反对常见的预付款制度，因为在那里面吃亏的是顾客。
预付款：顾客损失，骗子拿到钱。
简单托管：顾客损失，但骗子也拿不到钱。
你们是想说预付款更好吗？因为至少骗子拿到了钱，至少有人拿到了？
想象有人偷了你的东西。你拿不回来，但如果可以——如果它有个能远程触发的自毁开关，你会用吗？让小偷知道你所有的东西都有自毁开关，偷了就变废品（虽然你也损失了），这会是好事吗？如果他们归还，你可以重新激活。
想象黄金被偷就会变成铅。如果小偷归还，它又变回黄金。
我还是觉得问题可能在于表达方式。比如，在博弈论讨论中别那么直白地说"烧钱"。钱从来没有真正被烧掉。你永远随时都有释放它的选择。
英文原文
【引用 jgarzik on August 10, 2010, 06:53:57 PM（https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=750.msg8566#msg8566）】
"Ask some real-world business owners if they want to tell their customers about the chance of the money being lost forever, unrecoverable by either party.
"
That makes it sound like it might somehow get lost and the parties can't get it even if they want to cooperate.
When you pay for something up front, you can't get it back either. Consumers seem comfortable with that. It's no worse than that.
Either party always has the option to release it to the other.
【引用 nelisky on August 10, 2010, 08:20:36 PM（https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=750.msg8585#msg8585）】
"But the money burning solution, while great at preventing economically viable fraud, does nothing to prevent revenge and actually makes everyone loose if one side is dishonest. I would certainly not endorse that.
"
Then you must also be against the common system of payment up front, where the customer loses.
Payment up front: customer loses, and the thief gets the money.
Simple escrow: customer loses, but the thief doesn't get the money either.
Are you guys saying payment up front is better, because at least the thief gets the money, so at least someone gets it?
Imagine someone stole something from you. You can't get it back, but if you could, if it had a kill switch that could be remote triggered, would you do it? Would it be a good thing for thieves to know that everything you own has a kill switch and if they steal it, it'll be useless to them, although you still lose it too? If they give it back, you can re-activate it.
Imagine if gold turned to lead when stolen. If the thief gives it back, it turns to gold again.
It still seems to me the problem may be one of presenting it the right way. For one thing, not being so blunt about "money burning" for the purposes of game theory discussion. The money is never truly burned. You have the option to release it at any time forever.