[bisq-network/proposals] New trade protocol (#52)

[Manfred Karrer]

> The fee model for entering into a 2 of 2 trade should consider how much it costs a bad actor to clear the order book of competitively priced offers by locking up funds so their trades are the only ones listed.

By taking sell offers the attacker would lose his security deposit (he is buyer). With buy offers he would risk to lose also his trade amount. If security deposit is sufficiently high those attacks are rather unlikely. We plan anyway to adjust security deposit on volatility. So that should reduce that attack risk even further.



> Requiring a reimbursement request through the DAO for failed trades could be used as an attack on the DAO? If a bad actor were to inundate the compensation system with reimbursement requests it could directly affect the BSQ market?

The stakeholder do not need to accept requests. If anything weird is going on they might reject all and wait for longer until the situation has been resolved. Requests can be rejected and repeated later again, so we an delay it if it requires more time to figure out what happened.
I don't see it as a realistic risk but yes, there is some risk for "sabotage" attacks.

> A new fee model ...
Not really a new fee model just an additional fee for the arbitration option which should reflect the costs of the arbitration system. But we take care to avoid that users are pushed to the new model. The fee can be defined in DAO voting and will likely start with 0.

-- 
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/52#issuecomment-457560156
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20190125/a0181a11/attachment.html>