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

[Steve Jain]

> And as a more general comment, regarding the UX of having a network level account age parameter, I think that if we don´t have that (or what we have is not reliable enough) we all agree that a decentralized local whitelisting should be implemented. Comparing those two alternatives it is not clear at all that the decentralizaed UX is better as you would have to repeat whatever process you deem necessary with every single new trader and it could lead to fragmented and siloed liquidity.

This, in my mind, is the critical decision we will need to collectively make: peer-to-peer with repetition or network-wide with convenience. 

At this point, we've got adequate ideas in place that indicate how each one would practically turn out for users.

To address cadayton's points: if we stick with the network-wide approach proposed here, perhaps we broaden the measures required to start account aging to some of those included in #83 (particularly method 2, which I just updated to not require PGP anymore) so users aren't required to open/use a second bank account.

-- 
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-495247540
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20190523/9a0d7eba/attachment.html>