Truthcoin makes the public court system obsolete

[zack]

Truthcoin allows the victim of the court to bribe the jury into saying "not-guilty".
It is possible to make this bribe anonymously.
The court system wont have any legitimacy once truthcoin exists.

[psztorc]

But there is an incentive to again double-cross and then say "guilty". The prices (and logic) never converge.

In paper #3 I argue for the use of "Schelling Points" to allow such a convergence. But these are harder to use for illegal goods.

Even if it were easy, it wouldn't remove the legitimacy of the court system...not every individual's selfishness is expressed in a-willingness-to-take-bribes. Many individuals are proud to harbor a strong sense of justice.

Also, bribes could be very expensive, leading to courts still acting as a strong determinant.

[zack]

What if you have a 10-year sentence, and you bet $100,000 that you wont be let out early in the first year.

Wardens who are willing to accept bribes would make a much bigger profit. So they are willing to spend a lot more money to get the job. Eventually the crooked wardens would drive the honest ones out of the market. Within a decade probably.

Our prison population is about to get a lot poorer. Maybe there will be a market for massive loans to afford the bribe? They can be a debt slave instead of being in prison.

[zack]

In many cases it is not a public bad to let someone out of prison. Many prisoners did non-violent crimes, and have children they want to be with.

[psztorc]

What if you have a 10-year sentence, and you bet $100,000 that you wont be let out early in the first year.

Wardens who are willing to accept bribes would make a much bigger profit. So they are willing to spend a lot more money to get the job. Eventually the crooked wardens would drive the honest ones out of the market. Within a decade probably.

Our prison population is about to get a lot poorer. Maybe there will be a market for massive loans to afford the bribe? They can be a debt slave instead of being in prison.

Why bother repeating myself if you don't read the first time?

In many cases it is not a public bad to let someone out of prison. Many prisoners did non-violent crimes, and have children they want to be with.

You don't really think that our Judicial System should be replaced by What Some Guy Thinks? You are in favor of dictatorship, now?

[zack]

---To respond to what you said earlier:
I agree with you that a large fee does act as a deterrent, which means that the court system could still have legitimacy.
I disagree with your thinking that people will be honest and refuse bribes. The dishonest will be more profitable. Like the market for used cars, the bad drive out the good. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons
I agree with you that shelling point consensus should be used. No selling of shares until consensus is reached. One state is the case where he is in prison, 10+ other states are if he doesn't go to prison.

---In response to your more recent post

I am not in favor of dictatorship. I just want to know how truthcoin could or could not be used so that I know how to build it.
Are anonymous bribes an important use case, or not? Will the court system get rebuilt to pump massive volumes of wealth through truthcoin?

---ordered responses to https://github.com/truthcoin/www.truthcoin.info/blob/gh-pages/faq/index.md#if-pms-can-be-used-to-finance-public-goods-can-they-also-be-used-to-finance-public-bads-for-example-to-assassinate-someone

1) Many people think non-violent criminals don't belong in prison. It would not be hard to find people willing to mediate a branch.
2) Since it is illegal to try people twice for the same crime, this doesn't apply.
3) I don't understand this one.
4) The courts cannot tell which contracts are real insurance and which are fake. If the law enforcers blindly punish everyone who has insurance, then people will create insurance for their enemy. That way their enemy will get punished by law enforcers.
6) same reason as (4)
7) Bribery is not like murder. It is a premeditated economic thing. So this argument doesn't apply.

[zack]

I am still trying to imaging how (5) applies to court case bribery, I am not sure if that problem applies in the new context or not.
Would this be a fake-criminal who pretends to go to jail?

[psztorc]

I disagree with your thinking that people will be honest and refuse bribes. The dishonest will be more profitable. Like the market for used cars, the bad drive out the good. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons

In MFL, one can't tell the difference between good and bad cars. In this reality, we can tell between bribe-takers and non-bribe-takers, for example with a fake trial, or informants.

Are anonymous bribes an important use case, or not?

No.

Will the court system get rebuilt to pump massive volumes of wealth through truthcoin?

No.

1) Many people think non-violent criminals don't belong in prison. It would not be hard to find people willing to mediate a branch.
2) Since it is illegal to try people twice for the same crime, this doesn't apply.
3) I don't understand this one.
4) The courts cannot tell which contracts are real insurance and which are fake. If the law enforcers blindly punish everyone who has insurance, then people will create insurance for their enemy. That way their enemy will get punished by law enforcers.
6) same reason as (4)
7) Bribery is not like murder. It is a premeditated economic thing. So this argument doesn't apply.

Most of this is nonsense to me. Can any third party find something in here worth responding to?

Re: #1 You can't control who owns a Branch, or coordinate with them,and most people think law-breakers deserve prison.

(5) probably doesn't apply to bribery, because you can't easily fake whatever action was solicited.

[zack]

What about researchers who want government contracts to fund their research. Can they bribe whoever makes the decision on which research to fund?

[psztorc]

It's a waste of both of our time for you to be asking me these questions: http://lesswrong.com/lw/la/truly_part_of_you/

If you ask me, though, you are -wrongly- assuming that people will tolerate bribery. If I were funding the research (as a philanthropist or as a civil servant), I wouldn't tolerate the money being misdirected, and I would sue for damages (if I had a case).