5 ms·

Before entering the contract, both sides ideally will agree on a mediator of disputes. There could be a marketplace for mediators. If a seller of an item does n

Before entering the contract, both sides ideally will agree on a mediator of disputes. There could be a marketplace for mediators. If a seller of an item does not approve the mediator the scammer buyer wants, then the transaction never takes place. Systems that enforce lock-in of mediators will be pushed out of the market when more open systems come online. Also, both sides put up some collateral, which both forfeit in the case of an unresolved dispute. A scammer will still pay some value into the multi-party transaction, so operations will not last long if many disputes go unresolved.

sanswork 12y ago
That system already exists with trusted 3rd parties and escrow systems though. You aren't improving the existing systems at all though because you still require just as much trust all you're doing is changing the currency used. All the bitcoin escrow solutions are just a variation on "I want to use this 3rd party to ensure trust but I don't trust them enough to actually do so". It doesn't work like that though so you end up with "I want to use this 3rd party to ensure trust but I don't trust them enough to actually do so but I will end up having to". >Also, both sides put up some collateral, which both forfeit in the case of an unresolved dispute. A scammer will still pay some value into the multi-party transaction, so operations will not last long if many disputes go unresolved. So if I am scammed I not only lose out on the scam but I am further punished by the protocol to lose this collateral as well?
- mpyne 12y ago
  > So if I am scammed I not only lose out on the scam but I am further punished by the protocol to lose this collateral as well? Well, that's the Bitcoin philosophy in a nutshell: they solve the problem of being screwed by third-parties by arranging the system so that when you inevitably do get screwed, you will have to sagely acknowledge that it was your own fault the whole time. The math is perfect after all, which means the system is perfect, so by reductio ad absurdum if you get a crazy result (e.g. being screwed by a mediator) it must be due to a crazy axiom on your part (e.g. your decision to use a shitty mediator). Now, doesn't that make you feel better? Welcome to the Jungle; you lost your money fair and square, and you have only yourself to blame.
SilasX 12y ago
>Systems that enforce lock-in of mediators will be pushed out of the market when more open systems come online. Unless they're governments /s

sanswork 12y ago

That system already exists with trusted 3rd parties and escrow systems though. You aren't improving the existing systems at all though because you still require just as much trust all you're doing is changing the currency used. All the bitcoin escrow solutions are just a variation on "I want to use this 3rd party to ensure trust but I don't trust them enough to actually do so". It doesn't work like that though so you end up with "I want to use this 3rd party to ensure trust but I don't trust them enough to actually do so but I will end up having to". >Also, both sides put up some collateral, which both forfeit in the case of an unresolved dispute. A scammer will still pay some value into the multi-party transaction, so operations will not last long if many disputes go unresolved. So if I am scammed I not only lose out on the scam but I am further punished by the protocol to lose this collateral as well?

mpyne 12y ago
> So if I am scammed I not only lose out on the scam but I am further punished by the protocol to lose this collateral as well? Well, that's the Bitcoin philosophy in a nutshell: they solve the problem of being screwed by third-parties by arranging the system so that when you inevitably do get screwed, you will have to sagely acknowledge that it was your own fault the whole time. The math is perfect after all, which means the system is perfect, so by reductio ad absurdum if you get a crazy result (e.g. being screwed by a mediator) it must be due to a crazy axiom on your part (e.g. your decision to use a shitty mediator). Now, doesn't that make you feel better? Welcome to the Jungle; you lost your money fair and square, and you have only yourself to blame.

SilasX 12y ago

>Systems that enforce lock-in of mediators will be pushed out of the market when more open systems come online. Unless they're governments /s