Right smight. Rights are something granted by authorities to their subjects. You can talk about rights in court if you like, but the concept doesn't apply here. There is only the question of what mt gox's customers expect and what they will do if they feel their expectations are not met.

As far as I can tell there's nothing "hard" being proposed to force people to use demurrage? Perhaps that's why it's worked with local currencies - social pressures can enforce compliance in a small community where in a large one - let alone one where identity is as ephemeral as it is here - they no longer function quite so well. I just don't think it will work at this scale. You'll have to develop a practical implementation to convince me it can compete with a currency not encumbered with demurrage.

That's really neither here nor there if your proposed solution requires people to voluntarily give up some of the value of their assets on the expectation that everyone else will do the same. At least that's what I understand you to be proposing? You'd have to have a system that makes that obligatory. How?

This sounds to me like a case of asking the individuals to set aside their short-term personal interest in favour of the long-term common good. I.e. subscribing to an ideology is required to get an individual to consent to this system. As long as people can freely choose to not take part, I don't think this can compete.

How do you get people to do this? If I'm getting this right, either you have to find a way to force them to do it, or they have to voluntarily choose to take part in this system on ideological grounds. I'm sceptical of solutions that rely on ideology - they lose out to more pragmatic approaches in the end. Maybe I don't understand what you're proposing to actually do?

I fully agree it's based on trust. I feel I can trust someone more if they tell me what they will and will not do. That gives me a way to evaluate how well they keep their word.

It's not a question of liking or not liking mt gox. My situation was this: Someone reported their funds on mt gox were held. I had some funds there as well. I'm not aware of any track record mt gox may have in handling cases of foul play, so I can't evaluate to what extent I can or can not trust them to do it right. I therefore deemed it prudent to withdraw my funds until this matter is resolved. I do expect the end result to be that mt gox comes through and the evidence is solid. I just don't know for sure yet.

Again, I'm not trying to agitate here. As far as trading goes, mt gox's reputation here is solid to say the least. I do, however, think we will be seeing more and more disputes as the economy grows, and there will be increasing pressure to develop a more transparent method for dealing with them. Some community members now essentially have the powers of judge and jury thanks to their standing, that's just where we are now. It can work for a small community. As the community grows, I think that will become unsustainable, and I'd like to plan ahead for that. That's all.

Have there been many previous cases of dispute resolution by mt gox? I'm not aware of a history of such arbitration that would let me judge how well they handle it.

Like I said, if solid evidence is provided that Baron was involved in wrongdoings, I'll consider the matter settled. It may even end up with me having an increased trust in mt gox as far as arbitration goes. I will want to see that evidence, though.

I can't speak for moa, but personally I want proof that the person was a scammer in the first place. I'm not keen on the idea of mt gox as King Solomon. I've withdrawn my funds from the service for now. If solid evidence is produced that Baron was involved in stealing, I may become a customer again. If not, I'll have to conclude the risk of having my funds seized on a whim is not one I'm willing to take.

So, in order to be free, a market must be regulated?

It is pragmatic. I don't expect to be able to apply coercive measures against anyone when I can not identify them. I do not hold enough sway in this community to declare anyone pariah. If, then, I am to have any recourse against someone in a dispute, it seems best to me to only conduct business with people who will voluntarily declare their willingness to follow certain rules, and to conduct my business in such a way that it can be proven whether the rules have been followed or not.

There is a difference between a difficult game and a game of chance. The games may look very similar, though.

An argument for universal morals, then? Good luck with that...

True. If there was an exchange that agreed to put limits on what they can do, I'd consider that a big plus in favor of that exchange, though. Mtgox has such strong standing (and power) in the community right now that they have a lot of elbow room. If the market grows, other exchanges will gain importance as well, and clear terms of service might be a competitive advantage.

My only problem with that is that I haven't agreed to let mt gox decide on such matters. I'm probably letting my anal retentive side show here, but all I'd ask for is a simple TOS when registering for the service that states they may hold funds if they have what they consider to be sufficient evidence of foul play. As things are, I'd be fine with trusting mt gox to make those calls, although further down the road, if a marketplace had a better defined TOS and clear-cut rules for dispute arbitration, I'd seriously consider taking my business there. I just think it's important for people to agree to be subject to disciplinary action if such action is to take place.

I'd be interested in hearing any concrete objections you could voice. I get the feeling we're not exactly on the same page here. I'm envisioning something very simple and limited in scope. Maybe the terminology used makes it sound more complex than it is?

Not necessarily. If you want to take advantage of voluntary arbitration, you will state that you will only do business under the condition that other parties will accept some set of rules and a method of arbitration. If they refuse, you take that as a sign they're not trustworthy and refuse to do business with them. Someone else may do business without any prior agreement regarding arbitration, but in doing so they accept they have no real recourse against being scammed, except to try to pit their word against that of the scammer.

Overall I'm starting to think arbitration is not the big issue here. It's proving you've been wronged that needs to be figured out. For physical goods, registered shipping is a good start. What about other types of trade? If someone was to claim an exchange operator was acting dishonestly, what kind of proof could they provide for their claims? What kind of transparency could an exchange provide to make it possible for users to make their case if dispute arises?

These laws are meaningless if you can not enforce them. You'd be hard pressed to bring a court case against an anonymous internet person. (Yes, anonymity is difficult, but that's a different discussion.) This is why the idea of web-of-trust etc. has been put to use in the Bitcoin community. If you can not rely on conventional legal means to enforce fair play, you come up with something else. Here, reputation is king. What is being discussed now is a way to make that reputation contingent on fair behaviour without descending into mob rule. I think it's a matter that has to be resolved. The solution doesn't have to be a full-blown legal system in the sense anyone living in a western society thinks of it. In fact, it shouldn't be that complex, it needs to be readily understandable by anyone. We just need to find common ground for dispute resolution so everyone can have an expectation of being treated fairly by the Bitcoin community at large.

I have. I agree it is unfortunately rather obtusely worded. I'm not saying we should take that document as is and start using it as law. I just think the basic principle is sound, and I do also think there is valuable insight in that document, as it represents the results of some amount of thought on the matter of arbitration without coercion.

What it boils down for me personally is this:

Arbitration can not be just if it is not done on terms agreed to by all involved parties. This leads to the need to determine the terms of arbitration prior to any transactions that may result in disputes. This leads to a need to have a simple, standardised framework for the purposes of determining what is and is not acceptable and how disputes are to be resolved.

So, if you and I were to conduct business under such a system, we'd need an arbitrator. It can be anyone we both trust. Any contract that may be subject to arbitration would need to have clear terms the arbitrator can pass judgement on. We would both agree to be bound by the decision of this arbitrator, and if either party failed to do so, they would lose standing in the community, as the arbitrators judgements would be public. That's about it in a nutshell.

The language of such contracts and the way an arbitrator operates are definitely areas of difficulty, which is why I think referring to prior work would be advisable. In the end, though, I think this will just need to be tried out to see where it goes.

No-one. The bankrupt party suffers a loss of trust.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I put forth this link, which I believe is relevant:
The Common economic protocols

The main thing I'd like to point out here is: Any arbitration must take place with the prior consent of  all parties involved. Anything else is tyranny.