Oh yeah, I understand that limitation. But if that's those are the terms you want to use: the receiver must register that they received their item then a smart contract just automates the processing of the agreement/escrow payments?
I mean, less action is required in order to respond, and less work required in generating the agreement? Otherwise a new program, or a program built on a framework (eg. how smart contracts theoretically work) utilizing bitcoin would be required each time a sale agreement is made.
I'm probably confounding this, so I'll try again: a smart contract would offer a format to build upon for such a market and escrow agreements with less work than writing something from scratch?
I feel like I'm missing something, but it's late. I've been thinking about this concept for a little while and can't find holes besides what you've described, or engineering errors like the Parity exploit... but it still feels like I'm blind to something.
Because UPS tracking is limited to determining whether UPS delivered a package. It can't say who the package was sent from, who it was delivered to, or what was inside.
This is what Dr Sanchez on our team calls the "box of rocks" problem. You _could_ potentially use a lack of delivery to automatically refund the buyer or something but automatic payout to the vendor is harder.
yes but this is also a problem in the real world right? I could order anything, sign the package once it arrived, and then complain that the box was empty.
With or without a smart contract, it is hard/impossible to prove I'm lying or not.
So I assume this case is mostly taken care of by insurance, not the platform fee? Or I guess that's what the platform fee is for?
