[CommunityDiscussion] Market transaction models - are any markets setup like this?

So, a few questions...

1) Are there any markets currently setup like this? 2) Would people feel better doing txns like this? Does it not really matter?

So while I was sleeping last night I thought of this, it seems like a way to setup transactions so that there's LESS money available to be had from an exit scam (although of course there's no way to prevent it entirely until we stop being lazy and use multisig or they change the protocol to make it easier to implement but I dont see that happening, plus market admins wanting to scam arent going to set their markets up in a way that is less susceptible to scamming anyway but just thinking out loud here) so I'm looking for everyones opinion and to tell me why it's dumb or if its already being done.

The way I understand current market txn models is: Every user account is generated a wallet address, when you deposit into that wallet, it shows your funds on the website, etc. After you deposit money into your accounts wallet, it could potentially be snatched up by market admins, hackers, etc. You make a purchase, and you transfer money from your market account wallet to the market escrow wallet (I assume this is just a single wallet with fancy code to account for everyones transactions?). Vendor ships your shit, marks the order as shipped, you receive your shit, get high as a kite and 3 days later after all the drugs are gone you hit finalize, which moves the money from the market escrow wallet to the vendors market account wallet.

So what I dont understand is, why not do away with the account wallets? What purpose do they serve other than to hold BTC that can be snatched up by market admins or hackers? My thoughts are this:

Buyer has an account on a market, but the account has no wallet address associated with it, no "you have this many btc" anywhere, nothing like that. Listings are the same as they are now. So a buyer makes a purchase with a vendor, and at that point the site generates an escrow wallet, unique to that transaction (or not unique, perhaps they could be reused or pooled, not sure of the risks/benefits of that) that the buyer is required to transfer funds to. So the site has a trigger that runs when money is deposited into that wallet (theres many ways to have the code run to check this) that checks to make sure the order amount was transferred, and when it is, notifies the vendor that the funds are in escrow. Vendor ships the drugs, marks as shipped, enters their withdrawal wallet address (address the coins get sent to when buyer finalizes, or it could just be a setting you enter for your account so you dont have to enter it every time). Buyer receives said drugs, does them, finalizes, and the site transfers money from escrow wallet to the vendors wallet, and destroys the escrow wallet (or puts it in the pool to be reused, whatever).

Thoughts? Dumb?


Comments


[2 Points] Theeconomist1:

It's not necessarily dumb. What this does is just limit the coin exposure basically. You don't have coin sitting in a wallet unless it's involved in an active escrow wallet. But the thing is a better solution does exist - multi sig. So a market might as well just implement that. The escrowed coins are still vulnerable and I think you'd be surprised how much coin sits collectively in a market. It's considerably more than what sits in wallets unused. The market still has to own the escrow wallets in your example to prevent the buyer from moving coin back out or otherwise taking it.

So I guess the point being a better method exists. Perhaps before multi sig this would have been a better model than what we currently have.


[2 Points] yosure123:

tor market used to have a feature like that... you could place the order and then be given an order deposit escrow address and if nothing was received in 3 hours the order was cancelled. i loved tormarket.. they took our money and ran though.


[1 Points] Vendor_BBMC:

Buyer finalizes, THEN does drugs.

Yes, I've been making this point for a while. The onsite "vendor's wallet" is just an extra hurdle after the escrow, an opportunity for the market to prevent the vendor from getting his takings,

Evolution offered unstealable escrow. They just waited for it to empty into the vendor's evolution wallet and stole it.


[1 Points] 666fun:

What are you trying to accomplish? Do you think its customers left over coins that admins are after when they close shop Nd run? No, it's the escrow balances, which your idea doesn't address at all.

Plus you're perpetuating the escrow problem - my understanding is you're supposed to finalize upon receipt, not at some later date whenever you happen to get around to doing them.

But sending coins straight to an address is impractical - btc fluctuates too much. Either you send what turns out to be too little and have to send more, or you send what turns out to bed too much, and then how do you retrieve those funds.

Really, I don't get what you're hoping this system will fix?


[1 Points] ShulginsCat:

Doesn't actually solve any problems. Just.. friggin multisig man