5 ms·

"Disrupting politely" apparently means "drivers don't make a profit therefore aren't classed as professionals". In other words, "if you would like to compete wi

"Disrupting politely" apparently means "drivers don't make a profit therefore aren't classed as professionals". In other words, "if you would like to compete with our monopolized transportation mafia you can't make any money out of it". Which simply means that you are not allowed to compete. You can only run charity and we'll call it "disruption" and continue taking profits. I can't wait for a purely p2p service that allows drivers to pick up people for bitcoin and get paid directly without any intermediary that is forced to "comply" with whatever arbitrary "regulations". To make sure both drivers and riders and not morons, they could use 2-of-2 multisig insurance deposit (both parties deposit $50 each with a single $100 output and can unlock it only together upon arrival, with respect for the fee). Upfront deposit would put people in nash equilibrium and force them to be nice towards each other. Instead of centralized ratings we could use an implicit web-of-trust formed by personal recommendation tokens that are passed from friend to a friend when one recommends a driver to another.

snitko 12y ago
Did you just compare honest hard working taxi drivers to mafia? If government didn't require licences for taxi drivers, you'd have some crazy place like Russia where anyone can be a private driver without any licence and customers actually get cheaper prices and can get cars any time of day in seconds by just raising a hand and negotiate the price beforehand. Oh wait...
- fminor 12y ago
  Russia introduced legislation around taxis in 2011 because customers were routinely being ripped off. snitko's post is based on bad info.
  - snitko 12y ago
    That's first hand info. I live in Russia. You go out any time of day, raise a hand and chances are, a private car would stop. Taxis are limited to by-phone-orders, but are also very cheap due to a very light regulation. Not once was I ripped off or heard of anyone being ripped off.
    - fminor 12y ago
      If one of these random cars gets into an accident and you're hurt, who pays for your medical care?
      - snitko 12y ago
        I do. What's wrong with obtaining an insurance? It's my choice. You want an insured taxi service - get one and pay more. I want cheaper taxi and I don't want government to mess with my choices. It seems to me, westerners became so helpless and dependent on third parties (and government), it amazes me. Especially in the US. It used to the land of self sufficient entrepreneurial people. Now it's just a nanny state.
        fminor 12y ago
        I was only asking because in the US, if you're a passenger in improperly insured car, you're pretty much fucked. Private health insurance won't cover you. The driver's auto insurance won't cover you. Your private auto insurance won't cover you. There simply isn't a generally available american insurance policy which provides coverage for catastrophic injuries that occur while in a private vehicle that's being driven commercially. It saddens (but doesn't surprise) me that you felt free to jump to an unsupported, bigoted conclusion, and then to spew hatred at me. Typical HN. Asshole.
- oleganza 12y ago
  Actually, in Russia taxi is very lightly regulated without limited number of "medallions" like in NYC or Paris. While being in St. Petersburg this summer I ordered a taxi by phone dozens of times and it was always super-swift and human response. Unlike rude and slow taxi service in Paris.
- wyager 12y ago
  >Did you just compare honest hard working taxi drivers to mafia? Hey! There were lots of honest and hard working Mafiosi.
- baddox 12y ago
  I don't think it was a slight against individual taxi drivers, but against the taxi regulatory systems in many cities.
baddox 12y ago
> To make sure both drivers and riders and not morons, they could use 2-of-2 multisig insurance deposit (both parties deposit $50 each with a single $100 output and can unlock it only together upon arrival, with respect for the fee). Or, perhaps better yet, a 2-of-3 contract with an agreed-upon arbitrator who has a reputation for being fair. That way, the implicit web-of-trust can be abstracted to the arbitrators rather than directly between drivers and passengers.
- oleganza 12y ago
  I speculate that such arbitrators would be too expensive. Who would personally go and investigate a $10 ride? I'd try something else. If you dislike the driver (or rider), rate him and your app propagates to your friends your vote. They may re-relay that info further (with downgrading coefficient, like *0.66). This way there will be implicit web-of-trust for reputations. If this person has upset only one guy, his mistake may cost him this guy's friends at most (next tier circle may have rating below threshold). If he has upset several people, it will lower his rating for many more people.
  - baddox 12y ago
    Note that arbitrators would only be actually used in cases where the signers disagree, which would probably be rare assuming other reputation systems are also in place. Of course, the 2-of-3 contracts would be entirely optional, so it's quite possible that you're right, and that most people wouldn't bother with it for small transactions like ridesharing.

snitko 12y ago

Did you just compare honest hard working taxi drivers to mafia? If government didn't require licences for taxi drivers, you'd have some crazy place like Russia where anyone can be a private driver without any licence and customers actually get cheaper prices and can get cars any time of day in seconds by just raising a hand and negotiate the price beforehand. Oh wait...

fminor 12y ago
Russia introduced legislation around taxis in 2011 because customers were routinely being ripped off. snitko's post is based on bad info.
- snitko 12y ago
  That's first hand info. I live in Russia. You go out any time of day, raise a hand and chances are, a private car would stop. Taxis are limited to by-phone-orders, but are also very cheap due to a very light regulation. Not once was I ripped off or heard of anyone being ripped off.
  - fminor 12y ago
    If one of these random cars gets into an accident and you're hurt, who pays for your medical care?
    - snitko 12y ago
      I do. What's wrong with obtaining an insurance? It's my choice. You want an insured taxi service - get one and pay more. I want cheaper taxi and I don't want government to mess with my choices. It seems to me, westerners became so helpless and dependent on third parties (and government), it amazes me. Especially in the US. It used to the land of self sufficient entrepreneurial people. Now it's just a nanny state.
      - fminor 12y ago
        I was only asking because in the US, if you're a passenger in improperly insured car, you're pretty much fucked. Private health insurance won't cover you. The driver's auto insurance won't cover you. Your private auto insurance won't cover you. There simply isn't a generally available american insurance policy which provides coverage for catastrophic injuries that occur while in a private vehicle that's being driven commercially. It saddens (but doesn't surprise) me that you felt free to jump to an unsupported, bigoted conclusion, and then to spew hatred at me. Typical HN. Asshole.
oleganza 12y ago
Actually, in Russia taxi is very lightly regulated without limited number of "medallions" like in NYC or Paris. While being in St. Petersburg this summer I ordered a taxi by phone dozens of times and it was always super-swift and human response. Unlike rude and slow taxi service in Paris.
wyager 12y ago
>Did you just compare honest hard working taxi drivers to mafia? Hey! There were lots of honest and hard working Mafiosi.
baddox 12y ago
I don't think it was a slight against individual taxi drivers, but against the taxi regulatory systems in many cities.

baddox 12y ago

> To make sure both drivers and riders and not morons, they could use 2-of-2 multisig insurance deposit (both parties deposit $50 each with a single $100 output and can unlock it only together upon arrival, with respect for the fee). Or, perhaps better yet, a 2-of-3 contract with an agreed-upon arbitrator who has a reputation for being fair. That way, the implicit web-of-trust can be abstracted to the arbitrators rather than directly between drivers and passengers.

oleganza 12y ago
I speculate that such arbitrators would be too expensive. Who would personally go and investigate a $10 ride? I'd try something else. If you dislike the driver (or rider), rate him and your app propagates to your friends your vote. They may re-relay that info further (with downgrading coefficient, like *0.66). This way there will be implicit web-of-trust for reputations. If this person has upset only one guy, his mistake may cost him this guy's friends at most (next tier circle may have rating below threshold). If he has upset several people, it will lower his rating for many more people.
- baddox 12y ago
  Note that arbitrators would only be actually used in cases where the signers disagree, which would probably be rare assuming other reputation systems are also in place. Of course, the 2-of-3 contracts would be entirely optional, so it's quite possible that you're right, and that most people wouldn't bother with it for small transactions like ridesharing.