Sooo I write a smart contract and say you pay 10€ when you buy ice cream?
Who proofs that the smart contract is fulfilled?
Or let's asked different: how does a smart contract solves the trust issue from items not on the Blockchain?
Who proofs that the smart contract is fulfilled?
Or let's asked different: how does a smart contract solves the trust issue from items not on the Blockchain?
So in your example you can sell an ice cream for £10. When I buy it for that I pay £20 and you pay £10 and send the item. I eat it and we're both £20 down. So I want my £10 back and click a button. It then releases £20 back to you - the item price and your collateral, and my £10 collateral back to me.
I always thought that this part of a smart contract is ridiculous as it binds the same amount of capital as the transaction is worth on both sides.
It also doesn't fix the issue if someone with much more money than you wants to f** you over.
It also does assume you would find a good solution together just because of the capital invested but you know there are plenty of people who are not able to negotiate proper.
It just doesn't solve the issue and it doesn't solve issues like if the shipment is lost on sea. Or it's getting stolen.
A independent 3th party actually helps solving those issues.
The amount of collateral is configurable by sellers, and since buyers will soon be able to message sellers that means it's negotiable.
Normal companies with plenty of transactions per day don't have the motivation or money to put that much additional capital into the system.
Of course for a few transactions per month no one cares but I assume the goal is bigger than just a few transactions.