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

[Steve Jain]

> Do we see in the UI an account only as signed if it is signed and mature (e.g. 30 days after successful trade)? Or do we want to provide sophisticated filtering for offer makers and within the offer book to display signed and mature, signed and immature, unsigned

I would prefer showing 0 until an account is signed and mature, if possible. Signed but immature accounts don't have any additional powers (is that right?) so I'm not there's a purpose to show the exact status. I think it might only confuse traders who aren't familiar with the details of the protection mechanisms.

> If we add the 2FA payment (split payment) as an optional verification, do we want to set the account mature immediately or also only after a certain time delay?

I agree that it's important that we make it as hard as possible for scammers to succeed, so I'm in favor of requiring a time delay for 2FA methods too. Perhaps we can reduce the time delay for such cases, progressively, perhaps all the way down to zero if we ever offer enough verification mechanisms that sufficiently reduce the risk to not require a delay. It could function as an incentive to encourage people to verify themselves in the most robust ways.

> Shall we display if an account was signed by 2FA or matured by a single payment plus delay and also provide the option to filter during offer making and taking.

I'm not sure filtering is required at this point, but showing the means by which a person was verified would be important, I think, especially if we end up implementing multiple verification methods in the future. Both so that a trader can (1) "filter" unverified accounts on their own with less upfront development work (and reduce fragmentation in the UI), and (2) so traders can know (in the future) how a particular trader has verified themselves (perhaps they prefer a certain method, or perhaps they prefer 3 or 4 verification methods instead of just 2).

-- 
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-500513579
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20190610/d7beb64f/attachment-0001.html>