[bisq-network/proposals] Investigate alternative implementation for bisq (as basis for V2 / off-chain trading) (#125)

[Alexey Zagarin]

> > Bailing out investors does.
> 
> How is the security measurments which required an update related to "Bailing out investors"?

It effectively kicked out of trading or imposed ridiculously low limits on people who did nothing wrong, just had a relatively new account.

> > But different people have different needs and different risk tolerance, why do you feel that you can decide for them?
> 
> If stolen bank account scammers wouldnot have been stopped, Bisq would have been dead. Or how many people do you think would be willing to trade on Bisq when the chance that they get a trade with the scammer is very high?

All those people who can make decisions for themselves and aren't needed in this helicopter parenting would trade successfully. If somebody is ok to take a risk and lose money trading with a new account and/or using a payment method that is subjected to chargebacks, that's their choice. Imposing restrictions by force you just promote infantilism, thus no skin in the game. Best thing software can do is to warn, but not to restrict the trading.

-- 
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/125#issuecomment-539813458
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20191008/72728627/attachment.html>