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

[mpolavieja]

> * Was in a dispute with following condition: buyer received BTC (fiat was successfully transferred)

I remember this condition was brought into discussion but wasn´t aware that it was going to be forced.  It is indeed very good measure for mature markets.  I am not sure if it would work for inmature markets, because once this signing condition is known, we could only use disputes where the arbitrator did have evidence of the fiat trade, because faking a dispute is trivial for scammers.  

I suggested the possibility of accounts becoming signers simply by aging while there are not enough signers to not to rely on arbitrators for this, but I guess we should postpone this idea for arbitration-less context and for now it is better to stick to the same mechanism of arbitration sigining for all cases.    However, if the code always relies on signatures still this raises the question for the long term sustainability of all this signing mechanism of who/how the first signers are going to get signed when there are no arbitrators.

> After being signed the tolerated small trade amount of 0.01 BTC gets lifted 30 days later and the account will be able to sign other accounts x days (e.g. 60 days?) after the signing date.

For me anything between 60-90 days after the signing is ok.  I would say 90, but would not be against 60.  

-- 
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-505037518
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20190624/9585d9b4/attachment-0001.html>