Bitcoin Forum
December 07, 2016, 10:41:03 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Why trust anyone without a contract?  (Read 1077 times)
FXRiot
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 38


FXRiot.net


View Profile WWW
August 05, 2011, 03:30:55 AM
 #1

Good faith in services won't be enough, we have learned.

I would strongly advise any new eWallet or Dwolla-like services offer a contract that when signed, legally obligates you to carry out your end of the services.  This includes compensation for any losses.

To the client-end, if they refuse to enter into a contract, DO NOT USE their services.

If it may be difficult on how to structure such a contract - treat it as if it were a Bitcoin Constitution.  Let the community build the template of this contract/constitution.  'All services must abide by these agreements herein'.

Motion graphics for the Bitcoin community
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
elggawf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 308



View Profile
August 05, 2011, 04:14:34 AM
 #2

How do you enforce a contract with someone who doesn't have to identify themselves?

^_^
markm
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792



View Profile WWW
August 05, 2011, 04:23:05 AM
 #3

How do you grab bitcoins from inside a secure server?

Seems like the insurance rates would have to have been sky high to cover the losses that people's friendly neighborhood hackers are showing them - or maybe not quite exactly showing them in detail - how to "explain away".

I wonder how much losses paypal, e-gold, pecunix, alertpay and so on take regularly from these same or equivalent hackers?

Hey maybe they even use sock-puppet accounts to get auctionable stuff from merchants and charge back the merchants so as to cover all the losses these hackers cause them? Maybe that'd be better than admitting these hacks are so easy, that no system, even made by security expert computer-scientists, is unhackable, that, rather, one simply has to plan to in effect "pay off" a certain percentage of customer funds to hackers?

-MarkM- (Oh wait, did I forget a <sarc>...</sarc> somewhere in there?)

Browser-launched Crossfire client now online (select CrossCiv server for Galactic  Milieu)
Free website hosting with PHP, MySQL etc: http://hosting.knotwork.com/
JBDive
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238


View Profile
August 05, 2011, 04:28:16 AM
 #4

1. What contract would you get that could be enforced across all country boundaries?

2. Having worked in IT security for one of the big US Banks I can tell you that when it comes to Credit Card fraud it cost the banks a ton however at the same time Credit Cards are their biggest money maker with interest and fees. It was standard practice that if anyone from the CC group called and asked for some privilege that would normally require a bunch of paperwork and signatures that you were to do as requested right then and there, damn the paperwork.

3. As a Sysadmin that goes in behind a large number of techs and other Sysadmins I can say there are a ton of shortcuts and bad practices taken those that should know better so assuming any machine is "secure" is well, dumb.
Meatpile
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 277


View Profile
August 05, 2011, 01:18:56 PM
 #5

Good faith in services won't be enough, we have learned.

I would strongly advise any new eWallet or Dwolla-like services offer a contract that when signed, legally obligates you to carry out your end of the services.  This includes compensation for any losses.

To the client-end, if they refuse to enter into a contract, DO NOT USE their services.

If it may be difficult on how to structure such a contract - treat it as if it were a Bitcoin Constitution.  Let the community build the template of this contract/constitution.  'All services must abide by these agreements herein'.


I am not sure how much experience you have with the real world already... But in the vast majority of cases a contract is only there to benefit the richest party of a transaction (whoever can afford the lawyer) and its sole purpose is to LIMIT liabilities such as "having to pay for any losses" 

No company would ever sign random different contracts with / and made by each customer that would hold them liable for things beyond their control. That is insanity.

JoelKatz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386


Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.


View Profile WWW
August 05, 2011, 01:53:00 PM
 #6

Good faith in services won't be enough, we have learned.

I would strongly advise any new eWallet or Dwolla-like services offer a contract that when signed, legally obligates you to carry out your end of the services.  This includes compensation for any losses.

To the client-end, if they refuse to enter into a contract, DO NOT USE their services.

If it may be difficult on how to structure such a contract - treat it as if it were a Bitcoin Constitution.  Let the community build the template of this contract/constitution.  'All services must abide by these agreements herein'.
You already have a contract. If someone makes an offer and you accept it by providing them something of value, you have a contract. That's how the vast majority of contracts are formed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offer_and_acceptance

See, for example, Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlill_v_Carbolic_Smoke_Ball_Co

I am an employee of Ripple.
1Joe1Katzci1rFcsr9HH7SLuHVnDy2aihZ BM-NBM3FRExVJSJJamV9ccgyWvQfratUHgN
Meatpile
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 277


View Profile
August 06, 2011, 08:07:47 PM
 #7

Mr katz, if you look at the original posters wording he is expecting "compensation for losses" which I don't think would ever be assumed in any verbal agreement?

That is reason that things like Insurance exists, because no person is going to be responsible for things beyond their reasonable control. Unless they charge a premium and specificly state they will offer insurance etc.

FXRiot
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 38


FXRiot.net


View Profile WWW
August 06, 2011, 08:21:25 PM
 #8

To be more specific, the contract wouldn't be geared towards financials and potential hack attacks from outside sources. 

I was imagining a contract geared more towards protecting against fraud.

Motion graphics for the Bitcoin community
SmokeAndMirrors
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168


View Profile
August 06, 2011, 08:35:59 PM
 #9

I wouldn't trust any online wallet with bitcoins unless he/she publicly made a youtube video, stating they were going to do so, along with showing in the video various pieces of ID. Probably more...

Help Bitcoins by buying clothes, technology, books, etc. through people/stores that accept BTC. This will increase overall value of BTC as well as mitigate unnecessary bank transaction fees.

My address -
1EM9HGg1SEa5Bux1rVEPxGqGSfNTTc9EkC
JoelKatz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386


Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.


View Profile WWW
August 06, 2011, 09:40:20 PM
 #10

Mr katz, if you look at the original posters wording he is expecting "compensation for losses" which I don't think would ever be assumed in any verbal agreement?
Why, does something stop people from saying "I agree to compensate you for your losses"? And, in any event, these are not verbal agreements, these are written offers and then acceptance through an action.

Quote
That is reason that things like Insurance exists, because no person is going to be responsible for things beyond their reasonable control. Unless they charge a premium and specificly state they will offer insurance etc.
That's certainly true. But I'm not sure what that has to do with trust and contracts.

I am an employee of Ripple.
1Joe1Katzci1rFcsr9HH7SLuHVnDy2aihZ BM-NBM3FRExVJSJJamV9ccgyWvQfratUHgN
Meatpile
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 277


View Profile
August 06, 2011, 09:58:46 PM
 #11

Well I may have misread the original post, but to me it sounded as if the user wants an exchange that will guarantee them 100% of their deposit in case of a hacking. OR that he thinks individual users were to write up their own contracts with the exchange including any kind of zany compensation schemes the user could come up with.

I don't see that happening unless the fees are astronomical, and they specifically sold the fact that what is what they are offering.

Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!