Bitcoin Forum
December 07, 2016, 12:38:20 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 [3]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Potential solutions for Escrow/Fraud issues  (Read 3108 times)
Meni Rosenfeld
Donator
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890



View Profile WWW
January 21, 2012, 05:34:38 PM
 #41

After talking to a friend IRL about the two party escrow thing I realized there is nothing to stop the buyer from not releasing the money after the items arrive.

EX: I get items from seller, I'm already out my 100 bitcoins, and he's out 10 more, LOL!  I'm going to change my name and no one will never know that I'm a dick!

I think both sides would need a ~10% additional escrow to prevent all malicious fraud.  I think this is important especially for buyers as they will have far less reputation to verify and depend on compared to centralized merchants.
The reason I (and others) linked to past discussions is so that less time is spent reinventing the wheel. Take a look at this for example. Some more discussion occurred here.

It appears you overly complicated the idea and no one in that thread had a clue what you were talking about.
This is ridiculous. Of the 3 people who posted after me in that thread:
remmy (the op) understood what I said, up to some technical details.
iamzill probably didn't understand. His loss, my suggestion solves his suggested failure mode and I explicitly addressed it.
BitOffer presumably understood what I suggested, as he referenced it.

My "overly complicating the idea" was written in a way that makes it precise who gets what in which conditions. It was designed to solve the problems raised earlier in that thread - some of which you will probably only realize after some more chats with your IRL friend.

1EofoZNBhWQ3kxfKnvWkhtMns4AivZArhr   |   Who am I?   |   bitcoin-otc WoT
Bitcoil - Exchange bitcoins for ILS (thread)   |   Israel Bitcoin community homepage (thread)
Analysis of Bitcoin Pooled Mining Reward Systems (thread, summary)  |   PureMining - Infinite-term, deterministic mining bond
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481114300
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481114300

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481114300
Reply with quote  #2

1481114300
Report to moderator
1481114300
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481114300

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481114300
Reply with quote  #2

1481114300
Report to moderator
SomeoneWeird
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700


View Profile
January 22, 2012, 06:32:08 AM
 #42

After talking to a friend IRL about the two party escrow thing I realized there is nothing to stop the buyer from not releasing the money after the items arrive.

EX: I get items from seller, I'm already out my 100 bitcoins, and he's out 10 more, LOL!  I'm going to change my name and no one will never know that I'm a dick!

I think both sides would need a ~10% additional escrow to prevent all malicious fraud.  I think this is important especially for buyers as they will have far less reputation to verify and depend on compared to centralized merchants.
The reason I (and others) linked to past discussions is so that less time is spent reinventing the wheel. Take a look at this for example. Some more discussion occurred here.

It appears you overly complicated the idea and no one in that thread had a clue what you were talking about.
This is ridiculous. Of the 3 people who posted after me in that thread:
remmy (the op) understood what I said, up to some technical details.
iamzill probably didn't understand. His loss, my suggestion solves his suggested failure mode and I explicitly addressed it.
BitOffer presumably understood what I suggested, as he referenced it.

My "overly complicating the idea" was written in a way that makes it precise who gets what in which conditions. It was designed to solve the problems raised earlier in that thread - some of which you will probably only realize after some more chats with your IRL friend.

Might wanna relook who the OP is.
Meni Rosenfeld
Donator
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890



View Profile WWW
January 22, 2012, 06:38:31 AM
 #43

This is ridiculous. Of the 3 people who posted after me in that thread:
remmy (the op) understood what I said, up to some technical details.
iamzill probably didn't understand. His loss, my suggestion solves his suggested failure mode and I explicitly addressed it.
BitOffer presumably understood what I suggested, as he referenced it.

My "overly complicating the idea" was written in a way that makes it precise who gets what in which conditions. It was designed to solve the problems raised earlier in that thread - some of which you will probably only realize after some more chats with your IRL friend.

Might wanna relook who the OP is.
I meant the OP of that thread, who is of course distinct from the OP of this thread.

1EofoZNBhWQ3kxfKnvWkhtMns4AivZArhr   |   Who am I?   |   bitcoin-otc WoT
Bitcoil - Exchange bitcoins for ILS (thread)   |   Israel Bitcoin community homepage (thread)
Analysis of Bitcoin Pooled Mining Reward Systems (thread, summary)  |   PureMining - Infinite-term, deterministic mining bond
Matthew N. Wright
Untrustworthy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 588


Hero VIP ultra official trusted super staff puppet


View Profile
January 22, 2012, 06:48:29 AM
 #44

This is ridiculous. Of the 3 people who posted after me in that thread:
remmy (the op) understood what I said, up to some technical details.
iamzill probably didn't understand. His loss, my suggestion solves his suggested failure mode and I explicitly addressed it.
BitOffer presumably understood what I suggested, as he referenced it.

My "overly complicating the idea" was written in a way that makes it precise who gets what in which conditions. It was designed to solve the problems raised earlier in that thread - some of which you will probably only realize after some more chats with your IRL friend.

Might wanna relook who the OP is.
I meant the OP of that thread, who is of course distinct from the OP of this thread.

I am distinct from the op of any thread. Indubitably.

HostFat
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2296


I support freedom of choice


View Profile WWW
January 24, 2012, 12:38:17 AM
 #45

I like the CoinSpeculator's idea.
It can be % that can be set from the client before the transaction.
There should be a trackbar that goes from 0.00% to 100%, or even it can be set manually ( ex: 120% )
So, it will be even possible that both buyers and sellers will need to put the same amount of Bitcoin to make the exchange.
If everything will go well, the seller will get back his own money and buyers money too.

I don't know if this kind of transaction ( with such a high % ) will ever happen/needed, but I think that the should be available on the client(s)

Eternity Wall: Messages lasting forever - The Rock Trading (ref): A good exchange / gateway Ripple, with support for multisig, since 2007. 
https://bitcointa.lk: Bitcointalk backup if offline - Bitcoin Foundation Italia - Blog: http://theupwind.blogspot.it
Pages: « 1 2 [3]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!