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

[Christoph Atteneder]

> 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.

That's true. That might reduce the number of signable disputes quite a lot and I think it will need a manual selection by the arbitrator. I don't think I can filter out disputes that fulfill the conditions automatically. So for the start for our mature markets it will work fine, as the pre-condition for being aribtrator signed wasn't known and I can provide automatic signing for arbitrators for all disputes with a payout to the buyer. Maybe for inmature markets it would work to sign on the go without having the 0.01 BTC limit in place and force signing as soon as the market explodes or we have sufficient signed traders.

> 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.

Yes, it is quite difficult to do this without having someone objectively verifying the fiat transaction, without risking getting scam signers into the system. Regarding forcing everyone to apply to this rule to be able to trade above the limits I was thinking again if there is an option to do it in a way without putting new users at risk, but still make it easier for new markets to bootstrap. Maybe we could remove the 0.01 BTC limit altogether as soon as the account signing and the chat is out and label all offers that are not signed and above the limit with a warning sign and additionally warn the seller during the trade process that he is trading at his own risk from that point on. So the seller has to do the account verification himself using the chat. Not sure if that opens additional attack vectors. Just a thought to put out for discussion. But probably not worth the risk if we have other account verification methods in place already, that will remove the limit immediately anyways.

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

Then let's start high with 90 days and go down if we see that it takes too long to get enough signed accounts in the system. Do we want to have special handling for arbitrator signed accounts? So that they are able to sign immediately. All this accounts are quite old anyways.

-- 
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-505767929
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20190626/bc035978/attachment-0001.html>