[bisq-network/proposals] Allow unsafe payment methods if buyer locked up a BSQ bond (#131)

[wiz]

My thoughts about the use cases and justifications for BSQ colored coin:

1. BSQ used for voting in DAO governance is an excellent use case as it gives developers plausible deniability about who is "running bisq" and prevents Bisq from being regulated by governments.

2. BSQ used for compensation and payment of trading fees also seems fair, since only contributors can color BSQ and sell it to other Bisq users - there is no ICO-style raising capital, it's a way to charge customers reasonable fees for a useful service, and compensate contributors for their contributions.

3. BSQ used for bonds by contributors also seems reasonable, since contributors are staking their own BSQ earnings to do "trusted roles" like owning the domain name or being the GitHub admin.

4. BSQ used for bonds as trading collateral (i.e. in the v2 proposal) feels a lot harder to justify when the existing "security deposit" system, combined with "secure payment methods", works so well. The only real problem with security deposit transactions is the lack of optimization for on-chain TX fees. For example, a good start would be fixing it not to use 4 huge on-chain TXs, even a single on-chain TX with segwit/bech32 would be a huge improvement - of course moving to some multisig Lightning transaction would be best.

But requiring BSQ bonds locked up for 6 months just to use insecure payment methods doesn't really make sense - anyone who is serious about trading Bitcoin on Bisq would rather use a secure payment method, and any casual newbies who just want to try out Bisq wouldn't be willing to buy/hold and lock-up BSQ for 6 months just to buy some Bitcoin. It makes more sense to simply require them to use the existing security deposit / secure payment method system.

-- 
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/131#issuecomment-547036475
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20191028/7ea9b300/attachment.html>