[bisq-network/proposals] Reverse Dutch Auction for the Donation address BTC (#148)

[MwithM]

> Maybe instead of the Burning Man, we could have a Burning Committee, with more transparency - for example use a 3 of 5 multisig address for the donation address and have 3 of 5 of the committee members have to sign-off on each transaction?

I'm still not very happy with this approach because it just distributes risk (destroying deposit funds is the only way to make the attack no profitable), but I had also commented this possibility:
Use a 2of3 receiving address, but this address doesn't buy BSQ to be burned. Periodically, this address (donation keepers') sends donated BTC to a completely anonymous burner, but only if the receiving address will have slightly less value than the locked bond when receiving funds. If bond value is 5BTC and a transaction from donation address would make the burner address have over 4BTC, that transaction shouldn't be sent, or should be of lower value.
Thus, now we would need 4 roles for this task, 3 donation keepers and one just to burn donations buying BSQ. Donation keepers could be trusted people with locked bonds (with public identity or not), while burning guy should be completely anonymous.
We would still need to keep an eye at donation keeper address growth, but risk would be more distributed between two different addresses (donation keeper and burning guy) and 4 bonds.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/bisq-network/proposals/issues/148#issuecomment-565430393
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20191213/90c888fd/attachment.html>