[bisq-network/proposals] Using PoW for the P2P network messages as dos protection (#268)

[chimp1984]

@mpolavieja 
If the bond would be part of the multisig we could not use 1 bond for multiple trades but it would be rather like an extra security deposit/bond in BSQ. Also BSQ does not support MultiSig and a bond need to be sitting on 1 utxo with a timelock to give the option for confiscation, which would not work well with a more complex tx structure (could be prob. done, but complexity will add risks). Also its important that there is not more than 1 tx where the funds get locked up (deposit tx) as otherwise we lose the atomicity. 

But that idea might be interesting by using BTC with a timelock for an additional bond. So the payout would be split in the payout of the trade amount+sec. deposit and a time-locked payout tx of the bond. Basically what we have with the delayed payout tx but having a separte tx for the bond. So if the time-lock is for instance 1 months, that is usually enough time to cover chargeback risk the traders get their bond back from the timelocked tx. If there is a chargeback the victim can burn the bond of both with an alternative tx without timelock and ask for reimbursement from the refundagent/DAO.

Here the tx structure for that scheme:

Deposit tx:
- Input 1: Buyer sec deposit + buyer bond
- Input 2: Seller sec deposit + trade amount + seller bond
- Output: 2 of 2 MultiSig

Payout tx:
- Input: output of deposit tx
- Output 1:  Buyer sec deposit + trade amount 
- Output 2:  Seller sec deposit
- Output 3:  2 of 2 MultiSig for bonds

Time-locked bond refund tx:
- Input: output of Payout tx (2 of 2 MultiSig for bonds)
- Output 1:  Buyers bond
- Output 2:  Sellers bond

Burn bond refund tx (no time lock):
- Input: output of Payout tx (2 of 2 MultiSig for bonds)
- Output 1:  Bisq donation address


But I think people would not like to lock up for each trade a bond covering the trade amount (about 100%) which stays locked for 1 months, specially for market makers that would become very expensive from a liquidity point of view. It would also add new txs where we want to reduce number of txs.... so all in all I don't think thats a good idea, but for brainstorming and maybe find other solutions its an interesting approach. 



-- 
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/268#issuecomment-735880226
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20201130/a0f8da0e/attachment.htm>