zlacker

(1) No reason to build your own blockchain. This will only increase complexity and undermine security for no reason.

(2) No reason not to adapt existing standards to be compatible with any of the wallets that already exist.

(3) No reason to introduce your own wallet. How many wheels do you want to reinvent here?

(4) No reason to invent your own currency (and in fact this makes your escrow system break completely.)

Btw: the problem you're trying to solve has been "solved" many times over before using various escrow mechanism dating back to the gox era. The reason they all failed is because no protocol can make up for the opacity and unpredictable nature of the real world. If you think about it your solution is more like the opposite of what makes cryptocurrencies valuable: you're essentially increasing transaction costs to try "improve" the physical verifiability of goods. When normal people just use semi-trusted merchants which are faster and cheaper.

By the sound of your protocol it would increase shipping time substantially, increase costs to buyers (I'm assuming they have to pay higher fees to pay the verifiers), and after all that it still doesn't prevent scamming. Because you never know if a verifier prefers to hold on to an item and burn all their collateral based on changing economic conditions. Maybe they end up with an expensive item that holds considerable value relative to the staked currency (which I'm again assuming that you're inventing another wheel and increasing friction even more by introducing your own currency. Not going to even bother to look.)

Your idea resembles a more error-prone version of high-end verification markets like precious metals, gem stones, and art trading. But lacks a lot of the simple guarantees that such markets would provide.

>>Uptren+(OP)
I won't argue with your points 1-3, makes sense but this was fun building, and long term i think it was for the best. However, i would argue that the value of this currency is not tied to scarcity like bitcoin, or usage like ethereum. Instead the value of Dealta would be based on how well the initial goal is achieved, which is to reduce online frauds. The protocol is setup with timers, that limit how much time can be spent on each stage of a trade, hence limits time wasted when items are not in transit. Given that ebay and amazon take huge percentages, it could in fact be cheaper for the buyer. Its supply and demand. Thirdly, to counter the issue of a buyer holding on to an item, you can simply increase the collateral, lets say with 100%, so a 50% decrease in the coin's price is accounted for, thus making it infeasible. Again, this is something to be decided by the community. My initial argument for making Dealta PoW-based is that much like with any other crypto, whales who think this a good idea, would be able to handle the early volatility. All these things are why Dealta also has a native crypto. Would love to hear more from you!