[bisq-network/bisq] User can set custom tx fee to override FeeService estimated fee (#4231)

[cd2357]

> As far as I'm aware, users haven't been complaining about the tx fee rate in Bisq except during a couple incidents where rates were way too high and got stuck there. This happened in 2017, just recently, and IIRC there was one other time too.

That is a rather charitable interpretation I'd say, considering that
* people only realize what mining fees they pay if they read the fine print in the trade popup
* of those who do, few know what an acceptable mining fee is at the moment of the trade
* of those who know, few get upset enough to want to report it
* of those who want to report it, few know exactly how to do it
* of those, even fewer have the patience and willingness to setup keybase, or setup a github account + create an issue

So there are many stages to go through, and only the last group are "visible" to the Bisq team as having made a complaint.

Its also a question of which metric to use when deciding how to prioritize limited dev resources:
* minimize amount of BTC unnecessarily "lost" by traders in every trade?
  * then prioritize fee estimation (done), bech32 support (#1139) + upgrade BitcoinJ (#2772), possibly RBF (https://github.com/bisq-network/bisq/issues/1077#issuecomment-357526156), etc
* minimize amount of open tickets and complaints?
  * then prioritize those things which most amount of people complain about

> With the above said, I don't see this as a priority now that we've solved the problem of too-high fee rate recommendations out of earn.com with @cd2357's PR at bisq-network/projects#27.

I agree with @cbeams. From a *"should Bisq merge this change"* perspective, this PR is probably not necessary anymore, now that the fee estimation is more accurate. So I'll just go ahead and close the PR.

However, looking from a *"should Bisq eventually support this"* sort of perspective, I'd say yes. After all, Bisq is open source and if the protocol allows such a change, sooner or later someone will patch their local client and do it, cause it would be in their best interest to save some sats on mining fees.

-- 
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/bisq/pull/4231#issuecomment-625642486
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20200507/86912fbc/attachment.html>