allispaul wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Sgeo <sgeos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> None of the rest of this email should be construed as agreeing to any
>> agreements, the rest of this email notwithstanding.
>>
>> Unlike the scam in part 1, I [at least I think it was I] discovered
>> this scam when it was still viable. I didn't understand relative
>> currency worths, so I talked about it with ais523. As far as I know, e
>> never acted on it.
>>
>> I agree to the following public pledge:
>>
>>
>> {
>> This is a public pledge called Fair Trade. Only Sgeo and $VICTIM may
>> agree to this pledge. Upon joining, $VICTIM CAN and SHALL give X units
>> of currency X to Sgeo. 1 week after this is done, $VICTIM CAN and MAY,
>> by announcement, act on behalf of Sgeo to cause Sgeo to give $VICTIM Y
>> units of currency Y.
>> }
>>
>> *$VICTIM gives Sgeo currency X.*
>>
>> As Fair Trade is obsolete, I terminate it.
>
> I'm afraid I don't entirely understand.
$VICTIM thinks: "Okay, I give X to Sgeo now, and I get Y from Sgeo a
week later." *gives X to Sgeo*
Sgeo announces: "Ha ha, the contract no longer imposes any obligations,
so I terminate it as obsolete and you get nothing."
