Quote from: boldandbratsche on March 28, 2017, 11:47:43 PM

The 'BitBay Lite' can be the exact same client software, but with a different skin, so it's super easy to make from what currently exists. If you're looking for something to add, add on something that would make it easier for sellers to use, like a way to organize orders, shipping addresses, and the order status. We already have a reason for buyers to want to use it, so now we need to make sellers really WANT to use it.

I should specify that in the BitBay Lite, in order to initiate the contract, the buyer would have to pay immediately. Otherwise, they would be able to initiate and void contracts for low costs that would cost the seller large amounts of money.
[/quote]

No I don't think you are understanding how these contracts work. They are unbreakable. Double deposit is simultaneous deposits by both sides and the payment for goods and services is advanced as well. So there is no way for either side to void a contract. Everything requires mutual consent or both parties lose funds
[/quote]

I understand how the contracts currently work, but I've been trying to market this platform to various communities that I know would use this platform. The response has been that the current exact details of these contracts are not favorable in terms of people wanting to use BitBay. The first users of this platform are 100% going to be people using BitBay as a safe alternative to Bitcoin. There is somebody paying money, and somebody sending a good. If I understand the current system, it requires buyers to front DOUBLE the price of the item. If the seller doesn't come through, the buyer will lose twice as much money as the seller.

-Both parties front the price of the item as the reserve: Buyer Net Cost - $50 ......... Seller's Net Cost - $50.

-Next, the buyer sends the seller the cost of the good: Buyer Net Cost - $100 ........ Seller's Net Cost - $0.

-Seller does not send the good, and the buyer
does not consent to the transaction,
losing the reserve: Buyer Net Cost - $100 ........ Seller's Net Cost - $0.

I was suggesting an alternative contract system that would exist in addition to the current contract system. In the additional option, you would have the buyer's reserve set at .5x the price + the advance of the cost of the good/service, and the seller's reserve set at 1.5x the price.

-Both parties front the price of the item as the reserve: Buyer Net Cost - $25 ......... Seller's Net Cost - $75.

-Next, the buyer sends the seller the cost of the good: Buyer Net Cost - $75 ......... Seller's Net Cost - $25.

-Seller does not send the good, and the buyer
does not consent to the transaction,
losing the reserve: Buyer Net Cost - $75 ........ Seller's Net Cost - $25.

A net loss of 50% seems like a reasonable deterrent for each side to not break the contract. Expecting the seller to risk 2x or more the cost of the item with no risk from the seller is not reasonable in the markets you need to be targeting. Instead of a one size fits all contract formula , which doesn't work in this market, there would be customized options depending on the context.

-------------------------------

On top of that, the beta client still isn't working for me. I was able to download it, and it took me to the "which language" page once, but then windows firewall started asking for permissions, and the program crashed. Now it won't open.
[/quote]

If it crashed it may be due to antivirus maybe? I submitted a ticket with avast and they approved it already, download the newest version. I think AVG was also frustrating. The newer build might not trigger it because it doesn't elevate to admin within the script.

Also, if it won't open check task manager, perhaps bitmhalo or bitbayd is running in the background... just force close it. If you want you can come on slack and i will walk you through it.

You can negotiate those lower deposits. In every template you can set custom deposits. Its really up to the merchant and buyer. But the thing is new buyers having to put up the deposit equal to item value is pretty fair in my opinion. There is also guarantor contracts that make only one side deposit. It depends on a users reputation and KYC and level of trust really.

A lite client wouldn't be easy to make. If you were a coder you would realize how tremendous amount of work UI/UX is especially for a single coder. A new skin isn't the only thing to consider it would in many cases require a refactor. It would be scope creep and distract me from the main roadmap.

If i had millions then sure, a mobile wallet would be nice too or a "lite" mobile version of the client.

Every contract is different, some are barter others are DDE... it depends on the deal.