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

cd2357 notifications at github.com
Fri May 8 05:45:24 UTC 2020

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

More information about the bisq-github mailing list