[bisq-network/proposals] Implementation of protection tools: strengthening Account Age by requiring payments from 2 Bank Accounts (#93)

[Christoph Atteneder]

> @ripcurlx, Is a longer trade period going to be implemented for trades involving unsigned buyers and signers? If so, the signer could have more leeway to wait at least 3 or 4 working days after he receives the fiat payment to make sure there is no chargeback. Another approach would be to just advise the signer to open a dispute if they feel they did not have enough time to confirm there is no chargeback (In this regard, maybe we have to consider the possibility of opening a dispute for a settled transaction to quickly inform the arbitrator if there is a chargeback).

Atm it wasn't on my list yet. It can't be easily done by just extending the trade period by a certain factor, if a unsigned buyer account is involved, as it could then just be misused by the buyer to delay the payment as long as possible. If we display and implement this delay only on the seller side, the buyer might open a dispute in the meantime after the trade period is over. I think the easiest thing we could do is to show additional information to the seller if an unsigned buyer is involved to delay the release of the BTC as long as possible. The proper implementation would be to not show the dispute button to the buyer after the trade period is over and display another delay bar and additional information. Not sure if it is worth to implement this properly as we still have the amount limit (0.02 BTC) for unsigned accounts anyways. @mpolavieja What do you think?

> Maybe an internal soft-limit could be implemented, so the new account would only get signed if there are more than X days between the "payment started" and "payment received" events. If this information could also be hashed into the witness data, it could maybe be used in a future implementation as a negative/positive reputation metric of reckless/trustworthy signers?

We could do that, but it is an additional challenge for the UI as it might cause some confusion on the buyer side if a signed account doesn't sign their account within the trade.

> Another thing to consider regarding UI is the possibility of opening a dispute for a settled transaction to quickly inform the arbitrator if there is a chargeback.

Good point - could you open a separate GitHub issue for that? Just want to implement the first account signing as lean as possible and than add as many separate functionalities afterwards if there is time left.

-- 
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/93#issuecomment-499802735
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20190607/d7fe073f/attachment-0001.html>