That shit BBMC and others said about Multisig Escrow.

Being not safe for vendors. Can anyone elaborate on it. Is 2-2 like Hansa any safer for vendor? Also your opinion on which site is the best for vendors if the number of sales and registered users are secondary to safety. Time like these I wish I was nerdier.


Comments


[5 Points] makeodij9n:

2-of-3 is a risk because the buyer can see your wallet address, if you arent careful to send your coin directly from address A -> mixer address A, address B -> mixer address B, etc... then wallets will lump them all together and expose your holdings.

2-of-2 doesnt expose buyer to anything, only market can see your address. Benefit of this method is buyer requires no additional software or work to make an order (which is the failre of 2-of-3 as buyers dont benefit from multisig), so you get benefit of multisig, protecting your escrow from market theft, without turning away buyers.

Hansa is tiny market though, 3% size of alphabay, EIC (2-of-3) is only 10% size and claims only 18% of it is multisig.


[3 Points] adaptations_:

I'm glad you started this thread.

I don't know much about multisig, but I'm assuming that BBMC is correct. If he's wrong, then he must be spectacularly wrong in this instance, yet no one has come forward to systematically destroy his argument. I see downvotes and not much else.

If someone can do it, hopefully they'll step up now. Or all this talk about multisig needs to stop.


[1 Points] Gent1eRapist:

It really makes no difference for the vendor. If they are comfortable with the centralized wallet that a market provides, they can recycle the coins from the multi-sig transaction back into the market, then withdraw from there.


[1 Points] None:

Everything's a risk. Don't spend out of the wallet you receive to, even if its tumbled and from a central escrow. Don't use the same spending wallet for long. Paper wallets are king, make sure you trust the method you use to make them....