[bisq-network/proposals] Properly define trade limits (#264)

chimp1984 notifications at github.com
Thu Oct 29 04:05:18 UTC 2020


I try to summarize the important motivations:

Account limits are in place as protection against chargeback scams and as loss limitation for mediators and arbitrators in case they make a mistake and pay out to the wrong trader (that happened and they had to pay from their pocket for their mistake, which can be very expensive with a 2 BTC trade).

So payment methods with no chargeback risk (like altcoins) do have the max limit of 2 BTC and that limit is only in place to limit mediators/arbitrators risk exposure.

Bisq's first priority is security. If its not secure to trade on Bisq is has failed. Of course there is no 100% security but that is the priority number 1.
Second priority is privacy. This is Bisq's value proposition and what makes it different to other exchanges.
Next priorities are usability and liquidity. If nobody uses Bisq because its too hard to use or too low liqidity we have failed as well.

I think the answers to above questions can be derived from those priorities. I guess there might be different shades as all those main priorities overlap and have their trade-offs. With being too extreme on security we will lose users and liquidity, so we have to find the right balance. The discussion in that proposal is an attempt to re-balance.

Account age signing was added after we had a serious SEPA chargeback scam. The account age limits turned out to be not enough protection so we needed to improve security. This is also the reason why we have to be very careful when "tuning" this feature. It was basically the only feasible idea how to protect Bisq against scammers in a way compatible with Bisq's vision. If we weaken that protection by increasing the limits too much and chargeback scammers come back it would have a terrible reputation damage and we have to question if Bisq's security model is sufficient. If we fail on security Bisq has failed.

> Is there a shared consensus among all stakeholders for the above answers? is one needed?

I shared my point of view. I assume many core contributors share more or less a similar view, but best they respond themselfes ;-).
I think the main values of Bisq are well documented and we intentionally wanted to keep them minimal. The flavours how they develop is the result of the people working on Bisq and shaping it. As it is an open project the outcome is open as well. 


-- 
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/264#issuecomment-718346012
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20201028/71a3d5a1/attachment.html>


More information about the bisq-github mailing list