[bisq-network/proposals] Remove maker fee tx and taker fee tx (#265)

[chimp1984]

> It would be good to have a mechanism to mark offers as not available if user btc balance is not enough to do the trade. That process could run every N seconds or after each trade action (create offer, take offer, offer taken, etc)
> 
Yes at any wallet activity at the user it can check if the balance can still cover all open offers and if not notify the user and reactivate automatically the exceeding offers. Thats a local operation. We do not need to protect that malicious users have open offers without funds, as that is also posisble now and cannot be enforces/verified. If that happens we have other means like banning the onion address.


> 1) There might be a problem in "As all nodes see roughly the same number of offers, the difficulty can be derived by that metric"... on PoW blockchains difficulty adjustments are based on all nodes seeing the exact same blockchain. But maybe we don't need a consensus on which offers are accepted/rejected. 

I think I was a bit sloppy in describing that. There is no need for a global consensus about that. When you send a message to peer who would have a different difficulty he can respond what is the required one and then you can re-send with an increased difficulty. The difficulty changes should be broad to not end up often such fine-adjustment message handshakes. 
Also the threshold where that become active is attack scenarios and so far we never has such, so for normal circumstances there should be no effect. If the network gets attacked there can be some level of qulity of service degredation but that should not prevent motivated users to use the network. 

> 2) An attacker with an ASIC or a bunch of GPUs could create lots of offers and make the difficulty to be increased a lot... then nobody with a standard netbook would be able to broadcast an offer.

Yes it will have its limits. If attacker is powerful enough the pow will not be sufficient anymore at some point. That is why it nees probably a secondary model as well, to allow users who have proofen to be human and past bisq users to shortcut the pow efforts.

We have to usa a hash function where not asics exist yet - there is little incentive to invest in that just for sabotaging bisq - no money can be made by that. But sure ASICS and also GPUs can never be prevented and make the model ineffective at a certain point. But I think one need to keep the overall system in mind including the economics, motivations, theat models,...


-- 
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/265#issuecomment-713881680
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20201021/e8f7cac9/attachment.html>