[bisq-network/support] Dispute mediator/arbitrator payout on trade WTZETDH (#486)

[Bisq-knight]

Replying your points one by one:

> bank blocking the trade is not a violation
1) The trade protocol also needs to leave room for us to learn, develop it and the bisq application further. If we make bank blocking a violation suddenly all users using revolut would have been violating the trade protocol when they introduced a new UI a month ago. We need to leave room for this rule as it gives us signal as to what we should change or not. Or would you prefer to alienate users in their first issue with the bank? (I've been banned by multiple banks already) 

The enemy is not the other trader, it is the bank. and we need to figure a way to route around them.
If you really have an issue with that, please write a proposal and send it to the DAO on how stringent we should be and we put it up for the community to decide. I also think that if suddenly we start getting a lot of cases with people who claim to be getting blocked by their banks we will implement more strict procedures to prove that, like we have for providing proof of a bank transaction being made.

Both of the violations could've been fixed with more time (especially since you told him time was not an issue). I don't like trades to drag over their period but you did tell him that. The fact is: this guy can show up in a week saying that he would've complied with our suggestion anyways.

That is all besides the point now because a payout has been made and a mistake as well. We all agree that Buyer violated the trade protocol and Seller should've gotten his deposit. I proposed a way for you (@ncstdc ) to get whole. Do you agree with that?

If yes, we can then just wait for the vote reveal to carry out the compensation.

As for bisq itself we are already in the process of developing guidelines for situations like these. I also believe that the choice we make today will be taken as reference for the future: 
"Facts that prove trade protocol violations should lead to penalties, claims do not invalidate the penalties" 
(I suggest we discuss and define what is a violation on a different thread in the /Proposals repo, so it gets proper visibility)

-- 
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/support/issues/486#issuecomment-680856971
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20200826/2dd2e8d6/attachment.html>