UCS for eCommerce

I feel that always the best way to understand something new is to have a UCS.
Its a simple one, just to examplify if it is possible or not!

Lets say we have 3 agents: buyer, service provider, merchant.

Buyer makes a purchase via service provider (lets say ecommerce site). It creates and address with amount to be transferred. This amount is transferred from buyer's account to a Clearing account (Smart contract). After a period when service provider confirms that goods are delivered (or just does not issue a stop address), the Clearing account sends (self executes) a percentage of the deal to merchant account and a percentage to service provider as a fee.

10x for any thoughts. I bet it is a bit more complicated.

Comments

  • BitcoinzieBitcoinzie Member Posts: 73 ✭✭
    You definitely want to make sure both parties agree to release the funds. Time execution could easily leave one party hanging. So confirming Goods Delivered and Goods Received. The problem is how to confirm this without doubt(is someone lying), the contract is just code so it will execute everytime the way it's supposed to. How do get a truth mechanism. Say the merchant says they sent the package but the buyer says they didn't receive it, how do you handle that with code? I have been trying to wrap my head around this exact question since the get go, as I'm an ecommerce merchant and a developer i see both sides of the coin. When you figure it out let me know so I can fork that shizz.
  • SteSte Member Posts: 4
    In the case given, the reputation is not included. It is assumed that all agents act in good faith. With the example I try emphasize on the possibility of an account to self execute transfers, hence an amount not to be exactly in service providers hands, although he has power over it. It is a form of automation where agent (middle party) is not necessary compared to classic UC.

    Out of the topic. @Bitcoinzie you can solve the case when service is on scale. Insure parties sort of. For example if red flag is raised. The amount will be hold until certain reputation events occur. Like buyer lying again, or merchant serving 10 buyers with no complaints. All funds of this sort can be in one account that could be checked publicly and act as insurance fund for all buyers and merchants. Founy buyers or merchants can change with new accounts and evade bad reputation. But you can always dis motivate new agents in not rising their overall reputation. What do you think?
  • BitcoinzieBitcoinzie Member Posts: 73 ✭✭
    Like a mandatory fund hold for rep less than 3, were "rep" = (good standing purchases or sales)-(flags) where merchants/customers are warned if buyer is of low rep and presented flag information. Flags are required to contain information about the user experience and what was wrong, product not delivered, funds not transmitted for services rendered..... Flaggers would have to fill out the details of the flag to be able to flag the transaction/merchant/user/account. This would allow customer and merchants to have the more control over the decision making process.
  • BitcoinzieBitcoinzie Member Posts: 73 ✭✭
    In a sense you can choose to trust someone if the flags look like bullshit to you.
Sign In or Register to comment.