[bisq-network/proposals] New trade protocol (#52)

[mpolavieja]

I was listening to the dev call about the new trade protocol and it caught my attention the problem of one of the trading peers being unavailable during the trade.

Would it make any sense that apart from the timelock tx to the Bisq donation address, the peers make also a timelock tx which could only get published right after the other one to undo the trade giving the security deposit and trade amount to the other peer?

So if one of the traders is not available during 1 month, the online trader could choose not to publish the tx to the donation address and publish the tx where he would get the traded BTC amount plus the security deposits without having to go through all the DAO voting and reimbursment process (and the pseudo-arbitration / underwriting process).

It could happen that if the online trader is the seller he gets everything if he intentionally does not confirm the payment reception and plays the game of the other peer not being available so he gets back his BTC after one month, but he would be very recklessly risking his security deposit.  If the buyer does not initiate a dispute and does not care about publishing the donation address tx, well, then there it is reasonable to assume that he is not going to claim any reimbursment anyway. 

In any other case where the fiat / alt-coin payment did not happen, I don´t see the problem if the other peer did not care at all during one month, so he deserves to lose his security deposit. 


-- 
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/52#issuecomment-534925985
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20190925/9183d9c3/attachment-0001.html>