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

[chimp1984]

@mpolavieja Good point with the case that both could wait and then have a mining fee race for publishing at same block. So my suggestion would not work. If seller gets it the buyer has no incentive for doing that and I agree it is more likely the buyer who has less at stake and forget about the trade.
Not so sure though anymore if this problem is worth the added complexity (not so much on dev side but more to communicate to user)? A high buyer security deposit might reduce that risk a lot as well, and having the arbitrator doing the reimbursement would not cause uch trouble to the seller. Also waiting more time has maybe more costs than using the arbitrator?

I think it could be also added later probably without much backward compatibility problems, so we could keep it as an optional addition for later if we see it becomes a problem. 

-- 
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-535210166
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20190925/b60defc6/attachment.html>