4 ms·

> If you were to make the coffee vendors or their customers liable for stolen beans they happen to touch then you can't have a functioning coffee market at all.

by shkkmo 7y ago

> If you were to make the coffee vendors or their customers liable for stolen beans they happen to touch then you can't have a functioning coffee market at all. That's not true. It just means that reputation, verification and insurance become critical to the coffee market and that friction makes the coffee market way less liquid. Now, legislatures and courts may choose to provide indemnity to all unknowing parties to reduce that friction, but it is hardly the only course this can go. The coffee vendor could also be held liable for recieving and mixing that stolen property. With the increasing amounts of money being lost by large insurance companies as a result of this issue and extortion claims, I would not be surprised to see laws in the not too distant future that move that liability off of the insurance companies and onto exchanges and indivuals. Large insurance companies haveich better lobbyists than cryptocurrency exchanges and the government doesn't seem to benefit from making sure cryptocurrency markets have minimal friction.

Canada 7y ago
> It just means that reputation, verification and insurance become critical to the coffee market and that friction makes the coffee market way less liquid. That is true, but generally everyone wants commodities markets to be low friction and liquid. Your point is well taken that maybe some governments would rather cryptocurrency markets be higher friction. Also keep in mind that governments put regulations at points that tend to attract problems. Pawn shops in many places are required to keep records that other private buyers and sellers are not required to keep for the very same items. > Now, legislatures and courts may choose to Yes, and how this currently works now depends on what choices they have already made regarding stolen property. In a lot of places the distinction is whether the property is absolutely identifiable as the stolen property. So in the case of a car, iPad, piece of jewelry or similar it is clear. If Malory steals the iPad belonging to Alice and then sells it to Bob then Alice can legally take the iPad from Bob if she can find it. Getting the money back from Malory is Bob's problem now. On the other hand if Malory steals and sandwich from Alice, sell it to Bob, and Bob eats it, then Alice cannot legally force Bob to compensate her. If Bob sold the iPad to Charlie Alice has to take it up with him, she can't make Bob hand over the money Charlie paid. > I would not be surprised to see laws in the not too distant future That may happen or may not, but right now the status quo is that once things have been disposed of by an innocent party the innocent party isn't forced to make restitution. Again, I am not going to claim this is how it works in every country on earth, but it is in the places I am familiar with.

by shkkmo 7y ago

Canada 7y ago

> It just means that reputation, verification and insurance become critical to the coffee market and that friction makes the coffee market way less liquid. That is true, but generally everyone wants commodities markets to be low friction and liquid. Your point is well taken that maybe some governments would rather cryptocurrency markets be higher friction. Also keep in mind that governments put regulations at points that tend to attract problems. Pawn shops in many places are required to keep records that other private buyers and sellers are not required to keep for the very same items. > Now, legislatures and courts may choose to Yes, and how this currently works now depends on what choices they have already made regarding stolen property. In a lot of places the distinction is whether the property is absolutely identifiable as the stolen property. So in the case of a car, iPad, piece of jewelry or similar it is clear. If Malory steals the iPad belonging to Alice and then sells it to Bob then Alice can legally take the iPad from Bob if she can find it. Getting the money back from Malory is Bob's problem now. On the other hand if Malory steals and sandwich from Alice, sell it to Bob, and Bob eats it, then Alice cannot legally force Bob to compensate her. If Bob sold the iPad to Charlie Alice has to take it up with him, she can't make Bob hand over the money Charlie paid. > I would not be surprised to see laws in the not too distant future That may happen or may not, but right now the status quo is that once things have been disposed of by an innocent party the innocent party isn't forced to make restitution. Again, I am not going to claim this is how it works in every country on earth, but it is in the places I am familiar with.