4 ms·
I observe the exact opposite: people do not like accepting the risk of payments that can be reversed because the buyer does a chargeback scam, or used a hacked
by ajkdhcb2 5y ago
I observe the exact opposite: people do not like accepting the risk of payments that can be reversed because the buyer does a chargeback scam, or used a hacked paypal account.
Multisig escrow is also better in every way if people want to involve a third party in case of a dispute
- lottin 5y agoRight, the thing is if I want to involve a third party (and I definitely want that), I wouldn't use a decentralised system to begin with, because decentralised means inherently inefficient and therefore expensive.
- arcticbull 5y agoEspecially since you have to trust a third person anyways and once you're trusting anyone, you lose all the blockchain guarantees.
- ajkdhcb2 5y agoFalse. The third party can't take the money, it can only be given to the receiver or back to the sender. That's how multisig works.
- arcticbull 5y agoCorrect, you have to trust the extra signer to make a good faith representation of what happened in reality. That makes the transaction inherently trustful.
- Paradigma11 5y agoSure its inefficient. For example the complete Tezos network uses around 10kW of power while a centralized solution might only 1kW. Relevance: None.
- ashtonkem 5y agoElectricity is far from the only measure of efficiency in financial transactions. Cost overhead is another one.
- Macha 5y agoSellers do not want, but buyers have the money and hence the power so sellers mostly just have to deal with it.