<p></p>
Yes to all. In terms of maker or taker, I'd be asking what do we want to incentivise?
<br>

<br>
Maker, yeah? They get ability to control narrative a bit more? 🤔
<br>

<br>
E.g. If they're a seller of BTC (maker) and want a particular description in bank that associates with a cover story. Don't want to risk their selling operation?
<br>

<br>
E.g. If they're a buyer of BTC (maker), I generally want to accommodate seller of BTC. So would probably engage with them and ask if they wanted a particular cover used?
<br>

<br>
I probably wouldn't specify one from the get go.. but then there's no way to amend and save during trade?
<br>

<br>
Hmm
<br>
________________________________
<br>
From: pazza <notifications@github.com>
<br>
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 12:49:15 PM
<br>
To: bisq-network/bisq <bisq@noreply.github.com>
<br>
Cc: Conza <conza_@hotmail.com>; Mention <mention@noreply.github.com>
<br>
Subject: Re: [bisq-network/bisq] Add option to make trade 'reason' less obvious (#2869)
<br>

<br>

<br>
Sure. And same with vice versa (seller)?
<br>

<br>
Hi @Conza88<https://github.com/Conza88> thanks for the feedback.
<br>

<br>
Yes, it would be the same. Think it should be maker/taker only. If it was maker and taker you would get 2 alterative options and it would get confusing.
<br>

<br>
I'd like an "(i)" that when hovered over indicates why, it's purpose.
<br>

<br>
Yes, I think it would be important to offer some more info to the reason.
<br>

<br>
I guess if maker of BTC sale put in e.g. "gun sale" and in my country that's illegal to own, that could cause issues - in which case, you'd just not do it...
<br>

<br>
Yes, counterparty could always ignore their peer's suggestion, this would always be acceptable.
<br>

<br>
Do you think it should be maker or taker that sets the alternative Trade ID? I am leaning towards taker as they can then learn which traders will include their suggestion and use this knowledge when taking future offers.
<br>

<br>
—
<br>
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
<br>
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<https://github.com/bisq-network/bisq/issues/2869#issuecomment-745016910>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AMMLWYQAYZP2EYXLTUYM6QDSU3FCXANCNFSM4HS7RAMQ>.
<br>


<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/bisq/issues/2869#issuecomment-745179427">view it on GitHub</a>, or <a href="https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJFFTNTH54RTJ34I75YNB6LSU4W7FANCNFSM4HS7RAMQ">unsubscribe</a>.<img src="https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AJFFTNRK62JCK2B7NXFYV73SU4W7FA5CNFSM4HS7RAM2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOFRVISIY.gif" height="1" width="1" alt="" /></p>
<script type="application/ld+json">[
{
"@context": "http://schema.org",
"@type": "EmailMessage",
"potentialAction": {
"@type": "ViewAction",
"target": "https://github.com/bisq-network/bisq/issues/2869#issuecomment-745179427",
"url": "https://github.com/bisq-network/bisq/issues/2869#issuecomment-745179427",
"name": "View Issue"
},
"description": "View this Issue on GitHub",
"publisher": {
"@type": "Organization",
"name": "GitHub",
"url": "https://github.com"
}
}
]</script>