Why don't vendors seem to want real multisig?

As a buyer, I've been wanting to see multisig become the standard for a long time. I don't like depositing coins with markets, and I don't like having to FE. With markets exit-scamming, and customers not releasing funds in a timely manner, I would think vendors would be all over multisig. That doesn't seem to be the case.

Most of the "multisig" systems we've seen have been bullshit, where you're still stuck sending money to a wallet controlled by the market. When markets actually try to do it right, they either get ignored or stomped. We've recently had a couple of markets try to bring multisig. One got torn up and shut down. The other one is still open, but only has a few vendors.

Now, we're finally seeing a couple of the existing markets implementing multisig, but they've been dragging their feet forever. Also, the speed that they implemented it with after that last multisig market showed up and got a little attention seems to mean they've had the ability to do this for a while, and chose not to. Why do we keep putting up with the bullshit of FE, and market exits, and vendors selectively scamming when there are alternatives? Why are we so hostile / apathetic toward markets that try to bring us technology that would benefit us so much? Just imagine not seeing tons of "IS [xx] EXIT SCAMMING???" threads every time a site has a few hours of downtime. Imagine not having to be afraid your money is gone every time a vendor doesn't ship or reply to your messages right away.

I am surprised at the lack of interest. I would think people would flock to multisig to keep their money safe. I am especially surprised at the vendors. Why do they seem so disinterested in something that protects them as much as it protects their buyers? Is it that they don't want to spend a little time learning a new way to do things? Is it that they figure they can withdraw after every transaction, and they just don't give a shit? I am really curious. It just seems like going to multisig solutions is a no-brainer. I think the buyers would go where their vendors go. I know I would always choose to buy form my favorite vendors on multisig sites if there were a choice between multisig and traditional.


Comments


[5 Points] PharmDiva:

Look at all the threads about being selective scammed. There is your answer. Vendors don't want multisig because it forces them to play by the rules.


[1 Points] hidyhocaptain:

I think the main reason is because we're all used to FE/ESCROW and all that and maybe i should just curl up and go over for /r/DarkNetNoobs but I don't entirely understand how multisig would work. Not even necessarily HOW the security would work but literally like WHAT we would have to do differently. Like WHAT would the exact process look like? This is probably the 10th or so post saying this same thing about "why don't people do multisig!" and i've been meaning to find out what this all means because NONE of these post I see even explain it. No offense to you, but they all do the same thing you do and just post walls of text that don't say anything other than complaining. I'm sure if it we're obviously better, then people would do it. So why aren't people doing the obviously better thing? Because not everyone knows what you're even talking about so you're preching to you're on informed choir when you talk about it without explaining it, you need to get people to understand what you're talking about otherwise you're not educating or converting anyone. It's just like speaking French in Spain and wondering why everyone hasn't converted to the obviously much easier (not actually saying it's easier) French language. Like that's not gonna help, none of the people who speak Spanish are gonna even know what you're talking about.


[1 Points] TheRealRocketship:

"Most of the "multisig" systems we've seen have been bullshit, where you're still stuck sending money to a wallet controlled by the market."

I disagree with this statement. As long as the multi-sig implementation prevents the market from exit-scamming then I as a vendor am okay with this. BlackBank didn't have "true" multi-sig but I was able to recover the vast majority of my coins anyway, and they used a scheme where you have to send your coins to an address that began with 1.


[1 Points] None:

So who handles disputes on multisig.


[1 Points] None:

Do you still offer a free thrid party escrow?


[0 Points] Ande2101:

Customers don't use it because it's a pain. Vendors don't support it because it's a pain and nobody uses it anyway.


[0 Points] carne_diem:

Unfortunately for both buyers and vendors, one of the main reasons vendors like FE is because bitcoin can be so volatile (I have 3 vendors who I've stuck with since SR1, and I usually FE for them for this reason). They can easily lose money if the value drops before the customer finalizes, and with multisig, people will be less likely to FE. Multisig can be a financial drag on the ones who do all the work. Also, because of the educational hurdle, making it widespread/obligatory would likely cost them a lot of customers- most people who use these markets don't use the best OPSEC. From what I've read, the vendors who do offer multisig don't get very many orders with it. Learning how to use it is the biggest issue for customers whether they FE or not. And as often as markets close or they or vendors start scamming, the odds of that happening during any single transaction aren't super high, especially if you do a few searches before you buy, so it doesn't always feel completely necessary to learn it. The good vendors want to do right by their customers and typically don't oppose it, but at the same time they want to be as accessible as possible and maximize their profits. Multisig is a fantastic idea, but using it as a default isn't ideal for either party (at least not yet).


[0 Points] hog_master:

"Let's add so many layers that it will seem to be secure" - Multisig.


[0 Points] None:

[deleted]


[-1 Points] None:

[deleted]