Why the temporary HANSA wallet step when using 2-3 multisig?

So I setup 2-3 and have been happily using it. What still feels sketchy is the initial part until the vendor accepts.

You send the bitcoins to a HANSA owned temporary wallet until the vendor accepts the order. (for info see "The order steps explained")

The main reason as a buyer to use multisig instead of escrow is to not trust the market in case of an exit scam. That point is weakened a lot through this step, since the market can exit scam all pending (paid but not accepted) orders.

In 2-2 this step is a necessary evil, since if the vendor doesn't respond at all, the 2nd signature is missing and the coins couldn't be recovered.

In 2-3 you can simply get the coins back by using your own key and HANSA uses theirs if the vendor doesn't respond or declines the order.

So why the (sketchy) extra step when using 2-3?

(This post has also been posted in the market specific subreddit)

Edit: I don't quite agree with the flair, this isn't really the typical DNMNoobs question.

Also this seems to be quite frankly a flaw in HANSAs design. As /u/CGMCoop has mentioned, ease of use isn't touched in any way if you put the vendor and the market fee into one multisig transaction.

I'd argue it is quite confusing for beginners, if you read up on multisig the experience on HANSA is very contradiction because of this. It practically appears like not using multisig at all (which it doesn't at first), that's not transparent at all.

This process also isn't explained in the guides, but can be found on the subreddit.


Comments


[1 Points] tuscanleatherbrk:

If you deposited directly into the 2-3 address, HANSA would not be able to charge a commission.


[1 Points] firehansa:

HANSA was designed to be easy to use for the average user. Sending an extra transaction for the commission would add confusion to the buying process. Some people avoid multi-sig markets just because it's too complicated for them.


[1 Points] None:

There's no good reason to set up multisig 2/3 that way that I can think of. The commission can be handled easily in the same transaction where the vendor gets paid. CGMC does 2/3 multisig without a temporary market controlled wallet. As far as I know, we're the only market that does multisig correctly, but I could be wrong.


[1 Points] AutoModerator:

/u/CGMCoop - You have been summoned in the thread /r/DarkNetMarkets/comments/656zi1/why_the_temporary_hansa_wallet_step_when_using_23/ by /u/we1kmhv.

This convenience is brought to you by AutoMod. Submissions do not automatically summon users like comments do. AutoMod is trying to be helpful.

For others, it should no longer be necessary to summon the referenced user in a comment any more. AutoMod has done the heavy lifting for you. You're welcome. Bow before me.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.


[1 Points] hhayn:

Wow didn't realize that was the case, it is a bit surprising given all the love Hansa and multisig get around here. However, I would think the response to that would be something along the lines of: The damage would be likely be limited to a small window before word got out. They would not have running access to a huge wallet, that at any given time contains roughly (or some nontrivial fraction of) the preceding two weeks worth of sales, market wide, like a traditional escrow market has.