|
|
|
|
|
by midev
1724 days ago
|
|
> You're assuming there's some benevolent God who can arbitrate who's right and who's wrong Literally nobody assumes this. Please don't invent strawmen. The point is, even with all the failings of the courts, different interpretations of language, and every other flaw, it's still better than having no recourse at all. > There's fraud where people buy an item online, then claim they never received it and get their payment refunded while keeping the item. And of course, the blockchain solves none of this. It just makes rectifying the problem far more difficult. |
|
> And of course, the blockchain solves none of this. It just makes rectifying the problem far more difficult.
Web3 stores would use an escrow service for physical goods where the buyer's money goes into the escrow contract and gets released to the seller when the buyer receives the item. In the case of a dispute it would summon a Kleros jury of say 30 jurors who would look at the presented evidence and come to consensus on an outcome. A lot of these problems have already been solved in a decentralized way but it's still early days so higher complexity projects take a while to come to fruition.