<p>I like also the spirit of this proposal,<br>
however I wonder if it represents a lot of work or not to implement ?<br>
I'm also worried about spam, we should be careful about not generating painful maintenance / cleaning-up work. But I believe that a fee, even small, should suffice to avoid that.</p>
<p>From the UI point of view, I think that something has to be done in order to present to users only a shortlist of <strong>pertinent</strong> altcoins. Drowning pertinent altcoins in a list with 95% shitcoins is imo not a favor for serious altcoins which make serious efforts to generate trades (and fees) on Bisq.<br>
Reinforcement could/should be favorized.<br>
It's always a good strategy to focus on what already is working, even a bit, and help it work better.<br>
And not lose time with a (incredibly) never-ending list of spam coins.<br>
New coins have to 1st make their proof by themselves or at least exhibit a minimum synergy with Bisq (like Grin did recently).<br>
When nobody in a coin community is able to discuss a bit about/with Bisq ... it's a very good indicator about the possible future synergy.</p>

<p style="font-size:small;-webkit-text-size-adjust:none;color:#666;">—<br />You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.<br />Reply to this email directly, <a href="https://github.com/bisq-network/proposals/issues/68#issuecomment-455133707">view it on GitHub</a>, or <a href="https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AkpZtv0qmHMc0FrhMyIx10L2GcqRBcxFks5vEFmFgaJpZM4aBYN1">mute the thread</a>.<img src="https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AkpZtmINVBNDhfFZhe8m81FFUH-SOIJtks5vEFmFgaJpZM4aBYN1.gif" height="1" width="1" alt="" /></p>
<script type="application/json" data-scope="inboxmarkup">{"api_version":"1.0","publisher":{"api_key":"05dde50f1d1a384dd78767c55493e4bb","name":"GitHub"},"entity":{"external_key":"github/bisq-network/proposals","title":"bisq-network/proposals","subtitle":"GitHub repository","main_image_url":"https://github.githubassets.com/images/email/message_cards/header.png","avatar_image_url":"https://github.githubassets.com/images/email/message_cards/avatar.png","action":{"name":"Open in GitHub","url":"https://github.com/bisq-network/proposals"}},"updates":{"snippets":[{"icon":"PERSON","message":"@HarryMacfinned in #68: I like also the spirit of this proposal,\r\nhowever I wonder if it represents a lot of work or not to implement ?\r\nI'm also worried about spam, we should be careful about not generating painful maintenance / cleaning-up work. But I believe that a fee, even small, should suffice to avoid that.\r\n\r\nFrom the UI point of view, I think that something has to be done in order to present to users only a shortlist of **pertinent** altcoins. Drowning pertinent altcoins in a list with 95% shitcoins is imo not a favor for serious altcoins which make serious efforts to generate trades (and fees) on Bisq.\r\nReinforcement could/should be favorized.\r\nIt's always a good strategy to focus on what already is working, even a bit, and help it work better.\r\nAnd not lose time with a (incredibly) never-ending list of spam coins.\r\nNew coins have to 1st make their proof by themselves or at least exhibit a minimum synergy with Bisq (like Grin did recently).\r\nWhen nobody in a coin community is able to discuss a bit about/with Bisq ... it's a very good indicator about the possible future synergy.\r\n"}],"action":{"name":"View Issue","url":"https://github.com/bisq-network/proposals/issues/68#issuecomment-455133707"}}}</script>
<script type="application/ld+json">[
{
"@context": "http://schema.org",
"@type": "EmailMessage",
"potentialAction": {
"@type": "ViewAction",
"target": "https://github.com/bisq-network/proposals/issues/68#issuecomment-455133707",
"url": "https://github.com/bisq-network/proposals/issues/68#issuecomment-455133707",
"name": "View Issue"
},
"description": "View this Issue on GitHub",
"publisher": {
"@type": "Organization",
"name": "GitHub",
"url": "https://github.com"
}
}
]</script>