notorial dissent wrote:What I'm still not wrapping my head around is WHY would I, or anyone, want to take on the possible debt of four other people, particularly if they are all deadbeats.
I think it's supposed to be some kind of communal hippie arrangement, with the modern blockchain model applied. The community looks out for their own, while the blockchain-like network of surety agreements provides information security, error checking, and openness. There's also a naive belief in the power of "surety", as if this word has some magical power to enforce obligations that ordinary contracts don't. It actually says all this:
A “substantive” binding surety is an independent written, witnessed agreement between living souls, for each to stand surety for the other; meaning you are agreeing to take responsibility for your bondsmen and them for you in an equally reciprocated bond.
The surety bond is a commitment of deep trust between the two parties, and if used local community is the security for the community itself in many ways
The constructed legal model, based exclusively upon constructed legal fictions, also attempts to impose a fictional surety bond, using deception and ignorance as the basis of consent.
Most of all, the system makes no concessions to imperfection. Everything works perfectly; there is never any inflation or deflation; accounts always balance except in cases of fraud; everyone always honors their surety; it's even immune to power outages:
bodge wrote:All it takes to destroy it is an EMP attack, a power cut or a Law passed to make it illegaltheoldenegiss wrote:i had a chat with the inventor and all he said is "they cannot stop a peer to peer system that has no centralised source, once its freed it is created purely by users, the users download the software which is drawn from the cloud, and use it"
Whoever designed this system has no understanding of human nature, much less economics. It requires human beings to act in illogical and irrational ways.