[bisq-network/proposals] Features which would require/benefit from a Bisq hard fork (#267)

[chimp1984]

> _This is a Bisq Network proposal. Please familiarize yourself with the [submission and review process](https://docs.bisq.network/proposals.html)._

<!-- Please do not remove the text above. -->

There are several ideas around which come with rather large changes and it will be challenging to implement those in a backward compatible way. In fact to achieve that is often a considerable effort. Of course we want to avoid a hard fork as far as possible as it comes wich severe disruption for users. Bisq only had 1 real hard fork so far. There are severl shades of soft/hard fork and we have several tools at hand. But I consider a hard fork here that users basically need to switch to a new application, using a different network and cannot use the old local data (conversion tool can be provided).

Here is an uncomplete list of features/ideas which would be candidates to require or at least benefit from a hard fork:
- Remove maker and taker fee tx
- Use a dedicated signature and encryption key for each offer instead of using the same global keys which is a privay issue.
- Use EC keys instead of DSA/RSA keys as they are much smaller
- Use a new onion address for each offer (same as above reuse of onion leaks privacy)
- Use blinded data instead of account age witness in offer (privacy issue)
- Add proof of work for offers
- Add proof or work for p2p network messages (dos protection)
- Add atomic swaps for BSQ/BTC (can be done without hardfork but would make dev life easier)
- Use new key for local reputation instead of onion address as root for reputation
- Fix some minor crypto issues 
- Change DAO state model


Some of those projects would be easier and some harder to implement in a backward compatible way. I am not arguing we should run for a hard fork, I just wanted to bring those ideas to attention and start a discussion about the pro and cons.

-- 
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/267
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20201019/c5847436/attachment.html>