[bisq-network/proposals] Trading protocol change: release of funds in 2of2 multisig to be signed by seller in first place. (#224)

[MwithM]

Ok I get now that buyers are the ones in position to perform future trading, but still, although there's little or none positive incentives for sellers to delay trades once they received the payment, it can happen without consequences.
Demanding mediation as a buyer makes no difference because seller can just ignore it, I don't know if that happens too often. It happened to me a couple times lately, once until the trade went to arbitration and another one for a couple days of delay (was supposed to be an instant trade). Even if plain negligence is causing this situations, it's unfair that only sellers can demand to be compensated for an unresponsive counterpart.

About buyer's min security deposit issue that arose, I think that letting users to choose is better.
Maybe leaving a 30% as a software default security deposit while it's still possible to making it lower to 15% is a better solution. Also, if a _volatility index solution_ goes on, to calculate the correct security deposits, it should be just informative. Some orders are not placed to be taken instantly, others are not taken instantly even if the maker wants.

-- 
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/224#issuecomment-643955861
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20200615/cce0e435/attachment-0001.html>