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

[Christoph Atteneder]

> If old account age is greater than 111 days (days from 1 March to arbitrators signing date), is it possible to show old account age instead of the new one?

I'm not sure if it is a good idea to use different values for different signers. Might cause even more confusion. I would label the column with something like `Time since signing`. On clicking the avatar icon you'll have both values anyways (account age and time since signing). I'll add something like a 
<img width="20" alt="Bildschirmfoto 2019-06-21 um 14 56 37" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/170962/59923923-df797500-9434-11e9-9abf-1290bf52016b.png">-Badge or similar to the time value in the list.

> I think trading limits should be calculated based on the signing date, but as you say, an exception should be made for those users with a creation account age greater than 111 days (i.e. days from 1 March to arbitrators signing date).

I'm not 100% sure about that either. In the end we'll have payment methods without signing altcoins, payment methods where signing could be optional e.g. ALI_PAY_ID, and payment methods where signing is mandatory to release initial limitation e.g SEPA. Taking for different payment methods different starting points in time where the limitations are reduced is difficult IMHO to communicate for the user and also makes the code harder to maintain. Of course if there is a good reason for it to do so, let's discuss it. But as the chargeback risk should be handled by our signing process already there might be no reason to delay the account aging for the user.

> Regarding the 0,01BTC limit, my initial thought was that it would get lifted as soon as the signing trade settles. Now that you raise the possibility of waiting 30 days I am not that sure. Once 2FA is enabled then I do think it would be too conservative.

Yes, delay should be doable. We have the date of signing in the SignedWitness store and can lift the limits only for accounts that were signed at least e.g. 30 days ago.

QUESTION: Do we want to force the signing restriction on all currencies for a high risk payment method or only for certain currencies (e.g. main markets: EUR, USD, CAD,...)? This would make it easier for bootstrapping new markets (e.g. JPY)? If a market is big enough we could release a new client version that requires signed accounts (would render old offers invalid until signed). So we would maintain a chargebackrisk list containing payment method and currency in the client (atm it is only by payment method: SEPA, SEPA Instant,...)


-- 
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-504451550
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20190621/10aced5f/attachment.html>