The problem with multi-sig transactions...

[Rune]

This would unfortunately make open bazaar integration much less straightforward, or at least be used differently on OB than other coins, leading to confusion (BTSX' greatest weakness). But otoh I agree that this is a better solution overall, due to its user friendliness.

I think the emergence if this inbuilt escrow system, and others like it, would create an industry wide debate about how to handle the reputation system of escrow agents. Should they be platform based (such as OB), coin based or universal as an external system to the others?

I personally predict that OB will end up becoming the only p2p trade platform, so it would make sense to have it be the default WoT for the entire crypto economy. That might also be an argument against a BTSX escrow system that doesn't fit into OB, unless btsx development takes the lead in implementing a custom OB bitUSD integration.

In the long run I'd like to see this system for Titan txs and regular multisig for non-Titan txs.

[Shentist]

in my understanding multisig is just like escrow, so with your solution i am fine.

i would suggest that this kind of transaction has higher fees and the fees will go to escrow agents with every transaction. every escrow agent will place an offer to do escrow service like your proposed insurance agent. after the dispute is solved the agent will rate the parties with + or - . In escrow you could later select you want only do business with accounts older than x and with not less then X - points.

[mf-tzo]

What am going to say might be completely irrelevant (again..) but I will say it anyway..

Could this be the Insurance DAC? Somehow we make an insurance for the transactions, or theft, or loss of funds and the insurer makes sure that I have X amount of funds and I want to send them to Y and process the payment (like the escrow), or settles the case in case of dispute, or covers the funds in case of theft (from fees generated in the DAC) etc etc...

 

[Mysto]

[bytemaster]

Users have to create, share, distribute, and manage partially signed transactions.   This is not viable for almost all users.  Only the most paranoid and patient of users.  The infrastructure required to "get this right" is significant. 

As a general policy I think there should be no situation where a user cannot sign and submit a valid transaction to the blockchain.   Multisig is a generic tool employed by Bitcoin to solve any arbitrary voting policy on spending funds.   Being generic means it is harder to use.

I think we can identify the 2 most common use cases and make it even better than Multisig. 

These use cases are: 
1) escrow 
2) transaction confirmation via 2 factor authentication service

The 2 factor authentication service is much more complicated and will require full use of multi-sig along with a "bot" that will automatically transfer all incoming TITAN transfers to unique multi-sig accounts. 

In the case of escrow:
1) Sender Key
2) Receiver   Key
3) Escrow Agent  Key

The escrow agent should only have the power to divide amount between the Sender or the Receiver and no one else. 
The Sender only has the power to give the funds to the Receiver.
The Receiver only has the power to give the funds to the Sender. 

In this case we can create a simple state transition on who controls the funds and any user can create/sign a transaction that will update that state transition:
1) Initiate transfer
2) Sender confirms transfer *or* Receiver returns transfer
3) *or* Escrow agent resolves dispute... and divides the funds between the parties.
   
I believe this simple escrow operation is much easier for users to interact with than multi-sig.   It would involve selecting an escrow agent at time of transfer and then clicking a "release funds" when the goods arrive.    On the receiver side they can click "return funds" at any time.   In the event of a dispute they both have to contact the escrow agent and pay for dispute resolution.