Quote from: deepceleron on November 14, 2013, 06:34:17 PM

Quote from: TheButterZone on November 14, 2013, 09:08:19 AM

In the case of starsoccer9, it absolutely did fool the "system" (which used to say that an empty unboxing video was sufficient proof of seller fraud). Bitmit attempted to revise history and claim this was never their policy, and effectively said that the tracking number alone was more proof that the item was delivered, than the unboxing video with the label still on, showing the seller & buyers' name/address, and tracking #, tape being cut away, revealing an empty box.

This is why the only effective escrow to mediate the meeting of scam buyers and scam sellers is full escrow. Buyer sends escrow agent the money, seller sends escrow agent the merchandise, who verifies its legitimacy and authenticity to the conditions set forth by the buyer. Only when both money and merchandise are escrow-agent-approved are they released to the parties.

This is of course impractical for many items, requires time and a trustworth escrow agent, and would require double-shipping and appropriate fees, but would guarantee that no scammer gets away with their scam.

There is no need to send the money to the escrow agent, there are protocols possible today, and for some time already, that eliminate that need. The escrow only acts if one of the parties do not conclude the transaction, and even then no coins are sent to the escrow agent directly. The other part about verifying the merchandise was already mentioned here, by me, and it needs to be done.

It is possible to automate in good accuracy many items, requires knowledge and a trustworthy company.