<p></p>
<blockquote>
<p>But I would be cautious about settling on a compromised reduced limit:</p>
<ul>
<li>As it is, reducing this signing trade limit is a rather disruptive change that will need to be rolled out <a href="https://github.com/bisq-network/proposals/issues/322#issuecomment-800103508" data-hovercard-type="issue" data-hovercard-url="/bisq-network/proposals/issues/322/hovercard">over a span of 2 releases</a>. Is it worth the hassle if limits could still cause trouble?</li>
<li>Users would need to be re-educated about what the new limit means and how to handle it (not easy since account signing is already a convoluted topic). Is it worth the effort if the signing limit will be removed soon anyway?</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<p>Good points. Geezus, that's drawn out. Especially around re-education, and when signing limit will be removed anyway (ideally)...<br>
The signal to market/impression would be "wtf is going on?' 'one week this, next week that... ugh!"</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Part of the initial reason for this proposal (and my desire to get it in 1.6.0) was a gut feeling that a better signing mechanism wouldn't be feasible to roll out in the short-term. It was really hard to get what we currently have conceptualized and built, and alternative approaches never materialized, so the odds of doing it now off-the-cuff seemed rather slim.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>That's fair enough.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>But if we can be confident that the account signing changes <a href="https://github.com/bisq-network/bisq/discussions/5339#discussioncomment-511001" data-hovercard-type="discussion" data-hovercard-url="/bisq-network/bisq/discussions/5339/hovercard?comment_id=511001">in this discussion</a> can be made in the short-term, such that the signing trade limit can be removed entirely in the next 1-2 months, it might be more advisable to just do a pop-up now and leave the limits as they are.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Yep, definitely onboard with that. Pop-up or altered gives knowledge about risk/circumstance etc. awareness for those accepting risk. And limits as is, doesn't inhibit introduction of new onboarding users etc.</p>
<p>I guess feedback on feasibility of that taking place in next few months?</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/322#issuecomment-803754265">view it on GitHub</a>, or <a href="https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJFFTNSR5IGWS5ZA3LXQI2LTE3CR5ANCNFSM4ZIDPHSA">unsubscribe</a>.<img src="https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AJFFTNT4ERRECIOKLAQOWK3TE3CR5A5CNFSM4ZIDPHSKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOF7UFCGI.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/proposals/issues/322#issuecomment-803754265",
"url": "https://github.com/bisq-network/proposals/issues/322#issuecomment-803754265",
"name": "View Issue"
},
"description": "View this Issue on GitHub",
"publisher": {
"@type": "Organization",
"name": "GitHub",
"url": "https://github.com"
}
}
]</script>