回复：托管
原始发布页
打开来源页面查看 1 个交叉存档
引用 jgarzik 于 2010 年 8 月 10 日 06:53:57 PM 的发言
去问问现实世界中的企业主，看他们是否愿意告诉客户：钱有可能永远丢失，任何一方都无法挽回。
这种说法听起来像是钱可能会莫名其妙地丢失，即使双方愿意合作也拿不回来。
当你预先付款购买东西时，也同样无法把钱拿回来。消费者似乎对此习以为常。它并不比这更糟。
任何一方始终都可以选择把钱释放给另一方。
引用 nelisky 于 2010 年 8 月 10 日 08:20:36 PM 的发言
但是，销毁钱的解决方案虽然非常适合防止经济上可行的欺诈，却完全无法防止报复，而且只要一方不诚实，实际上就会让所有人都蒙受损失。我肯定不会赞同这种做法。
那么你也一定反对常见的预先付款制度，因为在这种制度下客户会遭受损失。
预先付款：客户遭受损失，而窃贼拿到钱。 简单托管：客户遭受损失，但窃贼也拿不到钱。
你们是在说预先付款更好，因为至少窃贼能拿到钱，至少还有人得到了它吗？
想象一下，有人偷了你的东西。你拿不回来，但如果可以的话，如果它有一个能远程触发的终止开关，你会触发吗？让窃贼知道你拥有的一切都有终止开关，一旦偷走，对他们就毫无用处，尽管你也同样失去了它，这会是件好事吗？如果他们把东西还回来，你可以重新激活它。
想象一下，如果黄金在被盗时会变成铅。窃贼把它还回来，它就会再次变成黄金。
在我看来，问题似乎仍然可能在于如何以正确的方式来表述它。首先，在进行博弈论讨论时，不要如此直白地说“销毁钱”。钱从未被真正销毁。你永远都可以随时选择将它释放出去。
英文原文
展开英文原文
Quote from: jgarzik on August 10, 2010, 06:53:57 PM
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.
Quote from: nelisky on August 10, 2010, 08:20:36 PM
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.