The bitcoins are locked on the blockchain and can only be released when both the site and the depositor sign the transaction. The depositor signs the transaction with a payment password which is not stored anywhere (we only generate a seed from it) and is created before he deposits anything.
So, let's leave out the insurance question and separate it from the taxi-licence issue. Provided that all cars are insured, how am I putting other people at risk by riding a cheaper unlicensed taxi?
It works anywhere. Stupid state monopoly mafia trying to control how people are supposed to make money is scared. That's all there is to it. If I want to drive somebody and make money I don't need no licence. There's absolutely no justification for requiring a licence.
Stop this Randian nonsense. There are perfectly valid reasons to regulate taxi services - such as ensuring that passengers are safe, or that they aren't ripped off. Those requirements are beneficial as a whole.
It's perfectly valid to question whether or not the current regime in various places has been effective at achieving these goals. It's also fine to change the way it all works. But dismissing it out of hand like this is purposefully, dangerously ignorant.
This is the kind of unnecessarily provocative embellishment that HN guidelines specifically call out:
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
On the other hand, a blind devotion to the regulations in question without reference to passengers' overall well-being and ability to afford a ride is equally nonsense, and a common feature of the current regime's defense of itself. (For instance, when all the London taxi drivers were complaining about Uber using boring reasons about taximeters).
Your London example is poor: Uber is free to operate in London.
Uber drivers who want to be hailed from the street or use a meter need to i) use the correct meter; ii) use a wheelchair accessible vehicle; iii) "do the knowledge".
Uner drivers have an alternitive. They could operate as minicabs. That allows them to use the app for booking; they don't need to have wheelchair accessible vehicles and they don't need to do the knowledge. But it does mean that they can't use a meter for pricing - they need to be able to agree a price before they journey starts.
"Things that control or store money" (payphones, vending machines, ticket machines, taxi meters, gambling and TOTE machines) are all high profile targets for criminal gangs and for people wishing to commit fraud. It's probably a good thing that a limited range of taxi meters is allowed to be used, although the current system of assessing and approving meters is probably sub-optimal.
As if to prove my point, snazzy arguments made without reference to the customer's well-being!
Why must a prospective Uber customer be forced to pay specifically for "the knowledge" (an insane, financially risky, multi-year investment in human capital) to have access to cars running a variable fare business model? How do they benefit from having their choices restricted like this? But with Uber, the case of "unsuspecting user gets ripped off" is a lot harder to make.
I mean sure, when it comes to privileging a set of drivers with the power to take street hails you have a good excuse about protecting random tourists from ostentatious fraud. But requiring that all variable-fare hails have the Knowledge? Seriously? That's incumbent-protection and nothing else.
Agreed that there's a much wider issue to examine, because taxi services could really use an overhaul. Though I don't agree that the London case is particularly boring. The London taxi racket argued that Uber was violating the rules on minicab services not having taximeters (and that's a legitimately arguable point). That's how this sort of thing gets resolved; either we decide "yes, that rule is outdated, let's change it" or "no, we've got that rule for a reason which is still valid, Uber needs to change."
Sure, that was just one of the examples. These are all valid points for argument – one of the benefits of regulation is ensuring that taxi services are accessible.
IF you don't like Ubers pricing or safety mechanisms take a different taxi. That IS the point. More competition is always better. You don't need mother government to control everything and make the whole world "fair". Grow up and take responsibility for yourself. If there's room for competition there will be cheaper and "safer" alternatived.
Are there cases of uber driver on passenger violence and if so how do they compare to licensed taxi driver on passenger violence statistically? This just feels like fear mo getting from the anxiety ridden to though.
I honestly don't understand how you can be on a news site for start ups and be against fair competition.
IF you don't like Ubers pricing or safety mechanisms take a different taxi. That IS the point
This is a reductive and overly simplistic view that invites that total absence of regulation of any services.
The problem is that consumers are unfortunately not well informed, and that 'fair competition' is extraordinarily difficult to maintain in practice. That's why regulation happens in the first place – to prevent the worst excesses of the market.
I honestly don't understand how you can be on a news site for start ups and be against fair competition.
Then stretch yourself a little harder. Nobody's against fair competition - is it that hard to believe that some people feel fair competition is most effectively achieved not through uncontrolled free markets, but through broadly free markets with some state intervention to ensure a fair playing field? That's not too left-field, and it's the principle that every western state is operating on.
If Uber drivers do not have valid insurance[1] then the only "choice" I can make to avoid that is to not use public highways at all (an uninsured Uber driver can crash into me even if I'm not an Uber customer). I'm sorry but arguing for filling the roads with uninsured drives is just sociopathic.
I honestly can't understand how an adult in the 21st century can arguing against vehicle insurance. You don't even own a stake in Uber! You are arguing for adding uninsured drivers to the roads that you use, just to make other people rich. It's not even in your own self interest. Talk about irrational.
[1] e.g. because they have regular non-commercial insurance that isn't valid when operating a taxi, and Uber fails to check that their drivers are insured or educate them about what insurance they need. This has been a common complaint against Uber in various jurisdictions.
I'm sorry but arguing for filling the roads with uninsured drives is just sociopathic.
It's not sociopathic. There are (and were) countries where driver insurance is not compulsory. I lived in one, and it wasn't that bad. If you want to be sure that you get paid for damage, that's what insurance is for — insure yourself.
How can it be that it's perfectly valid to "question the current regime" and "the way it all works", but not the existence of licenses? Did you just randomly defined bounds of the discussion that we can have, and called everything outside of those bounds dangerously ignorant?
No. Blanket rejection of the existence of licenses – "There's absolutely no justification for requiring a licence" – is not useful at all. There are, objectively, justifications for requiring a license.
The problem with 'questioning the existence of licenses' is that Uber always plays the same tune, world wide - even if those licenses work very different in different locales.
Not every taxi system works as bad as San Francisco's and in some areas (eg in Germany), when counting by the numbers Uber is the bully: tons of money and international reach vs. regional taxi companies with a handful of cars.
People tend to be quite opposed to 'rent-seeking schemes' on hn. Except when it comes to Uber, which is _the_ example of a rent seeking, as the 20% parasite between customers and drivers while trying to tear down the advantages of the existing system that get in their way (safety regulations, accessibility guarantees).
>If I want to drive somebody and make money I don't need no licence. There's absolutely no justification for requiring a licence.
No but you should be properly insured and bonded to prevent client liability. You can argue Laissez-faire, but we tried that in the 1860-1890's and it really sucked. We collectively decided individual safety is worth more then a fatter wallet.
Your argument works from an Objectivist stand point, but Objectivism doesn't work in the real world.
Nothing about laissez-faire precludes insurance and bonding. If anything the very non-laissez-faire phenomenon of bankruptcy is what makes an insurance mandate necessary. Not that I'm against bankruptcy laws in general. I'm just pointing out that personal liability is hardly unregulated.
Arguing that personal liability laws already exist and can enforce this system is technically true. But you first have to concede that a cash settlement is potentially worth brain damage, loss of vision, loss of limbs, loss of family members, etc.
Therefore a potential liability lawsuit will result in no net economic gain, but restoring what you already had (I.E.: How much is your SO's life actually worth to you?). If you don't concede this fact, then every single instance of the situation correcting itself, I.E.: Crash and law suit, will result in a net loss to the community GDP and private loss of money. The service can have no economic value what so ever to the seller, or purchaser on a macro scale, its just becomes Russian Roulette as a service.
The issue with Randian Objectivism is it normalizes human death to solve micro economic problems.
No, everyone and every system puts a price on human life. The only question is who decides what cost is worth it.
We could basically eliminate car accidents tomorrow through extreme measures. We could lower speed limits to walking speeds, cover all vehicles in cushions, and require everyone to hire the services of a (licensed and bonded) crossing guard before crossing the street. If it saves one life or debilitating injury, isn't it worth it? Obviously not.
So at the end of the day, someone is balancing things like time, money, and effort with safety. The only question is who should decide what a reasonable cost is. I would argue that, given the right tools, you are better at protecting your family than whoever runs the taxi commission, DMV, or even the city council.
Reasonable people can disagree on what a reasonable cost is. They can disagree on who makes the decision and how. But it's not reasonable to jump into polemics about who has a morally superior worldview.
Disclaimer: I'm not a Randian, so I don't care to defend Randian mistakes, but I disagree with your logic on this point.
Replying to the other reply that exceeds the max depth one can reply directly to, to imply "human life" is somehow a magical infinitely valuable commodity is childishly naive. Human life is just an electrochemical reaction and like everything else in the universe has a quantifiable value.
If you're going to vote me down please explain how I am wrong and how not being able to put a price on life is more than just silly romanticism.
Counter point: How much do I have to offer you to kill yourself?
The actual answer is I can't. Because your life has infinite value to you, because without which you may not acquire any other wealth. I.E.: Your life is worth all the wealthy you may obtain to yourself, or potentially all wealth in existence.
Therefore, what is the quantifiable value of something with inelastic demand? Economics tells us its infinite (or we have to divide by zero to calculate it). But you say otherwise.
I am not arguing this point on licenses or no licenses, however I would say that assuming the client has provided an informed consent, then the client should be allowed to use whatever car service they want. If I hitchhike, I assume the risk with no expectation of protection. Consumers should have a right to use whatever they want -- provided they are aware of what they are consuming.
However the odd thing about Uber in Korea is that taxis are already relatively cheap. It isn't quite the overpriced racket it seems to be in other places. Also I find it odd that suddenly Korea is concerned about safety especially given the overall lack of safety consciousness at the government level (for example overloaded ferries sinking due to government officials looking the other way in regards to permitting and safety inspections.) I lived in Korea for a total of 4 years and, it comes down to this: nationalism and protectionism. This isn't about safety at all -- this is about someone getting (or not getting) paid. The mad cow hysteria a few years ago is a great example -- North American producers were effectively shut out of the market over unsubstantiated government claims of a mad cow risk.. Thus effectively subsidizing a far less efficient domestic market. During the time of their 'concern' over mad cow, not a single American or Candian was harmed by the so-called tainted beef. Yet safety was the propaganda with which they effectively killed beef imports. The Uber situation is no different. The Chaebols own Korea -- to an even far greater scale than large corporations 'own' the US. Korea is almost entirely run by three (perhaps 4) corporations. Everything from media, communications, heavy industry real estate, autos, food production.. All owned by Samsung, LG, Daewoo (and Lotte.) Wrong or right isn't my point, my point is that Uber isn't playing with (or paying) the right people, thus this action by the government. There's a reason the largest Korean banknote was no bigger than 10,000 won ($10) (though now they apparently have a $50 note) -- it was a result of a feeble attempt to reduce large cash payments under the table. Here's a badly written article discussing that idea: http://m.koreatimes.co.kr/phone/news/view.jsp?req_newsidx=15...
> assuming the client has provided an informed consent
How would the client be informed on issues such as
* proper vehicle maintenance records
* prior criminal record
* history of accidents and insurance claims
* presence of proper insurance to cover client's medical costs or property loss costs in case of an accident
This is something that is required of properly licensed transportation companies (i.e. anybody working under Uber Black). Until the client has a quick and convenient way to research that information, we can only pretend the consent is informed.
If I offer you a ride to the airport for ten bucks,should the state prosecute me criminally? Or is that true only if I use the I Internet to do it? What if I post in an online forum?
The state can certainly require me to purchase insurance to own a vehicle. Clearly in the public's interest. Perhaps that insurance should cover riders. Great discussion. But this is simply crony capitalism. There may be risk, but there is no crime here. At all.
I wonder how HN'ers would feel if the U.S. government decided to respond to a "cybersecurity crisis" by requiring licensure and fulfillment of a host of legal requirements (such as posting a bond or insurance) before anyone can program or administer any public-facing computer. After all, they'd just be looking out for the public interest. Surely no one wants laissez faire software development!
That's not to say there is no "public interest", but rather that the public interest is something that has to be balanced against other interests, and the freedom to ply a trade is a pretty important one.
> But this is simply crony capitalism. There may be risk, but there is no crime here. At all.
That is where you are quite wrong. The regulations of taxis goes way back to carriage regulations in the 19th century. The reason for this is clear: to ensure that the vehicle is maintained, the driver doesn't have a history of attacking or abducting passengers, and that pricing is transparent and passengers aren't gouged.
Taxis are not private transportation, period. They are a form of public transportation and function more like a transit utility. To not offer basic regulation of taxis is to leave the public at large in significant danger of being ripped off, maimed, and/or assaulted.
You are quite right about the reason for carriage laws. They're right out of two centuries ago, where a person who got into a conveyance had no idea what they might be getting into.
Those days are long gone, however. Today I can buy a used car on Ebay, committing thousands of dollars to a sale for a product I've never seen and a seller I'll never meet, all without worrying about the transaction. Why? Because information flows much more freely. The commercial transaction that used to take a government guarantee now just requires an open exchange of information about past history -- which is trivial to accomplish.
It could work this way. Wiring not done by a licensed electrician then you pay triple for insurance. No insurance no mortgage. Now you can have your house burn down and it is a total loss. Hell NH drivers don't need insurance. Live free or die.
Edit: Actually I just remembered you can wire your own house in NH, but it still has to be inspected. They are not totally crazy.
This is a horrible idea. What will happen and has happened in reality is that those with less scruples or money will simply pay for the cheaper unlicensed work and not pay for extra insurance. Those people or their tenets then suffer by injury and death when an electrical fire starts or an improper wiring job jolts someone.
It's a good thing you know everything and your actions never have consequences on others. Fire never spreads, the free market will solve all problems, and the earth is flat.
Yes but if your house causes a black out to our city, or a fire that destroys a city block who's held responsible? You, the electrician? What if people die?
The problem with Randian Objectivism is it normalizes human death to solve micro economical problems. I'd rather have micro economical problems then human death.
So you prefer a multinational corporation over local small / medium companies? That does really make no sense, this is not same as non licensed drivers operating in third world countries, who at least keep most their profits for themselves.
The FARC funded a big portion of their operations off of unregulated/poorly regulated taxi service. It's a lot easier to kidnap somebody when they willfully get in the car you intend to kidnap them in.
The problem with sanctions and manipulation of the oil prices by the US is that while trying to get rid of Putin, they're hurting average Russians, not Putin. And something tells me they know it very well.
In a game between politicians, average people are the real losers.
To some extent, and based on traditional views of sanctions (I won't get into whether they actually work or not), the point of sanctions is to hurt the average people. Economic and political elites in Russia are still going to have lots of money and access to luxury goods, it's difficult to stop that behavior (especially in a kleptocracy/dictatorship like Russia). But if you hurt the people, the theory goes, then they will get mad at their leaders and demand a change in leadership, thus hopefully leading to a new administration with new policies.
Well, the theory has not gone well at Cuba or Iran. If you hurt the people, the leaders will tell them that it's US fault, and the people will get mad at the US, because the leaders control the media and can convince the people of whatever they want. I cannot imagine that in Rusia is going to be any different.
I'm always amazed at how people want to fight corruption not really understanding that corruption is inherent to politics and government. You can't fight it. It's like fighting aging with plastic surgery. Sure, it may look good on the surface and it may even make you feel good psychologically, for a while. But you're still aging. Best you can do is accept that and lead a healthy lifestyle.
So, if you try fight corruption, it simply becomes more obscure. Corruption exists purely because governments and institutions exist. If you didn't have those, you wouldn't need to bribe some third party in order to be able to establish a business relationship with someone else (e.g. get a licence, permit, etc).
> You can't fight it. It's like fighting aging with plastic surgery.
It's more like fighting crime. Aging is an irreversible process that happens to one person. Crime and corruption are background processes that happen to societies.
You can fight it. You can't eliminate it, of course.
Crime too. If you look at what are most of the crimes that are committed in any given country, it quickly becomes obvious that those are mostly victimless crimes or crimes that are invoked by governments declaring something to be illegal (while it harms no one): like drugs being illegal provokes a lot of violence, gang culture etc. The only true systematic source of evil in any country is its government. Without it, you'd still have bad things happening, but it won't be on the same level.
What I'm saying is, governments foster violent crime by criminalizing many peaceful things. The best thing you can do to dramatically decrease violent crime rates is get rid of governments.
You can't get rid of governments though. People would spontaneously form states either to protect themselves, or to take advantage of the opportunity to set up protection rackets and tax others.
I find it amusing how people who dislike governments rarely move to failed states. You can easily move to an area without regulation or taxes but there not actually places you want to be.
A failed state doesn't mean absence of government. Similarly to how if you burn a church, it wouldn't make all the people in the village atheists.
What people who dislike governments can realistically do is not comply and ask for no permission. Don't pay taxes, use Bitcoin, ignore stupid laws, don't send children to government schools. Peacefully disobey.
Where? Rules instituted by force of arms (which you refer to as "regulations") and extortion backed by same (which you refer to as "taxes") are global. Short of war, Antarctica or establishing a seastead, you cannot escape them, period. And in the latter two cases, you stand a very high chance of simply inviting war at any rate.
My impression from a small european country is that most politicians will happily damage the tax payer for an amount roughly 2 orders of magnitude higher than the corresponding bribe, whether by taking a cut when privatizations happen or by spending ludicrous amounts on infrastructure projects or military hardware, or even by investing taxpayers' money badly on purpose to benefit banks (who pay bribes).
The only remedy I see is more transparency (all contracts, offers etc. must be made public) - but recent trends go in the other direction with secret agreements, more direct democracy (immediate direct public votes to prevent unpopular political decisions) and harsh punishment when officials are caught taking bribes (the Chinese go to extremes though - death penalty sometimes - with no apparent effect).
Long-term, very optimistic vision: replace corrupt political decision makers by AI, but I fear human tricksters will be able to take advantage of that too.
Fighting corruption is like putting a tax on it; it disincentivises it, makes it less efficient. If you allowed people to openly bribe politicians you would get much worse laws. Every bit of "obscurity" we force on them costs, makes corruption more expensive and less worthwhile.
The question people should be asking, how come in Eastern European countries internet access is so cheap and fast, yet barely regulated? It's so easy to argue for more regulation when things go wrong: trying to control businesses always sounds like a more noble idea than settings them free. And yet, in every possible example we see that where there's more freedom of enterprise, the customer always wins. And this is especially obvious with ISPs.
And the answer is simple: The local ISPs in the US are granted a monopoly by the local government, given special privileges, and given free money. These 3 issues make it hard for new competitors to enter the market.
Why would that anyone holding a lot of coins need some incomparably small sum from MtGox while he can clearly make more selling it before the meltdown on other exchanges?
By propping up MtGox he'd be keeping the value of his Bitcoins up. If MtGox fails, there'll be a huge dip in the price of BTC across all the exchanges.
I think since they refuse to show evidence they have enough funds, it should be assumed it's a scam until proven otherwise. Really, they're making tons of money off fees, they are the most expensive exchange. Screwing customers like that is below acceptable. They're not just some paid app that can go down and customer won't be affected too much. It's money. Lot's of them. You can't refuse to pay and keep silence, otherwise you're a scammer.
It's a good rule of thumb to assume incompetence instead of malice. In the instance of MtGox it just doesn't make sense for it to be a scam.
They ran a business for a few years in obscurity then when they become a central figure in potentially a massive change in financial infrastructure they decide to run off with the silver? MtGox had the potential to be worth many billions if they were a significant service provider in a successful BitCoin scenario. They possibly still do to some extent if they can get their act together.
The assumption isn't that they ran off with the btc. It's that someone else did, now they are insolvent, and to prevent the fallout they are trying to live off the float and hide their insolvency until they have made themselves whole again.
I personally would never give them my business ever. Many people won't either. I'm sorry, they already screwed me once last year holding withdrawal for 2 days, now again. They are going down in history. The only question, again, if they will return the coins. I doubt they will. Even if we assume incompetence, it doesn't mean they suddenly can't SPEAK, right? Go and tell your customers what's going on. When people are not open about things, it most likely means they want to screw you and you are safe to assume this to be the default version.
Even in the absence of overt theft on their part, if the real explanation is not what they are offering, then it is still very likely a scam. That is, they are not disclosing information to customers that would be relevant to the customer's decision to use their service.
So, for instance, with the fiat withdrawal problem, if the actual issue is that they are not solvent, but are hiding this fact in order to become so through trading fees (a popular theory), then they are shifting an extraordinary amount of risk on to the customer without his/her consent. That would represent willful misleading for their own gain.
