Quote from: Preventative.Measures on August 05, 2017, 08:28:48 PM

Quote from: dzimbeck on August 05, 2017, 07:54:18 PM

Quote from: Preventative.Measures on August 05, 2017, 07:18:57 PM

Understood, thought that might be a possibility, but won't the high outlay be a barrier to entry? For the uninitiated, I could see how putting 100% on the line would make them uneasy or irate for a variety of reasons. In many, many cases it would be entirely impractical. The folks using these marketplaces by and large won't be rich. Their net worth could (and in practice, will be) tied to the very items they're selling. For the guy listing the 10,000 BAY comic book, that could be an entire month's salary locked up in crypto limbo until the sale is completed...an amount our fictional seller cannot afford to put aside.

Is there any way to incentivize the deposit and reward completed transactions? For example a lottery wherein one could yield anywhere from 0.0000001% to 10% of the deposit for a sucessful transaction? There are a variety of interesting ways to implement the odds of high payout, to further incentivize good and civil conduct.

The BAY to fund such a system would have to come from somewhere...where I don't know...but I believe it will take more than 0% fees to overcome aversion to 100% collateral.

Just kinda spitballing as I really like this project and want to see it succeed.

This is why deposit can be customized in the first place. Users who are new can take guarantor contracts do they aren't forced to put up funds. Those can be unilateral for example. The whole thing is an exercise in building trust. That's why we have a rep system built in. For an untrusted party like you said, collateral should be equal to the item value.

I guess we'll have to see how it unfolds in practice. It sounds good, but it seems to presuppose the existence of a market that isnt yet there. Chicken and the egg. If everyone has to start as untrusted entities within the network, without rep, then you will still face the barrier to entry problem. It seems to invite over-dependence on a centralized guarantor (who?), which could just as easily gain strength as lose it when the network matures, and corrupt the original intent into something like an eBay/PayPal.

I guess you're saying in practice you, as a seller, can buy a gurantee from someone who will financially back the integrity of the transaction and foot the bill if things go afoul? And same as with the buyer? If the buyer doesn't have collateral he can purchase -- what would you call it? a voucher? -- from someone who will back the transaction on that side?

Sounds like a transaction fee to me, albeit a decentralized one. IMO unless there's some sort of financial incentive baked in people will find a way to game this system and burn it down before it has a chance to flourish.

Devil's advocate here. Like I said, behind the project, but something as elemental as this really needs to be fleshed out in great detail. If there's any extant literature to this end, please point me in that direction.

Guarantor contracts mean it's unilateral. One side puts up deposit. Example, you sell 200 dollars of coins, deposit 200 advanced payment 200 collateral. Buyer deposited nothing. Now he knows he can trust seller. Sellers only risk is buyer blows up contact before sending cash.

Similar solution with sales, buyer puts up double seller puts up nothing. Seller trusts buyer because he knows his item can be shipped.

The level of guarantor can be adjusted

I don't think it's a barrier to entry because they save so much money by using it and one party is always going to hold coins.

These questions are good and just realize this is a small concession considering we crush theft and deception.