One, don’t mock people on HN. Two, you’re going to need to cite real examples to support your claim, not just spout a bunch of buzzwords.
Quick search of “ethereum escrow” returns no real implementations that avoid fees or human intermediaries. Every single blog post I’ve read that tries to sketch an alternative is incredibly poorly thought through and still vulnerable to fraud. That is why they are just blog posts and not real, not because it’s “still early days.” I think it’s fair to say trustless escrow is vaporware.
I'm not going to argue against ignorance. One can simply google the technology and see for themselves instead of drinking the Kool-aid from others. There's a reason for the large push against crypto; an agenda.
Programmable consensus and smart contracts are easy to learn concepts.
*Also one should know it is offensive to call another's work vaporware. Especially, when one is relying on anecdotes. Next I'm going to be told IBM and Google are wasting their time and shareholder money on blockchain.
That's for posting an actual citation. The author of that blog post explicitly states in a follow up comment: "I totally agree that it makes no business sense" and that his objective is merely "to explain how a smart contract implements the terms of a contract."
So yes, fair to say it's vapor i.e. not a real thing. That may be harsh but it is a fair and supported criticism, whereas your prior comment merely engaged in unsupported mockery.
Quick search of “ethereum escrow” returns no real implementations that avoid fees or human intermediaries. Every single blog post I’ve read that tries to sketch an alternative is incredibly poorly thought through and still vulnerable to fraud. That is why they are just blog posts and not real, not because it’s “still early days.” I think it’s fair to say trustless escrow is vaporware.