[bisq-network/bisq] Replace Burning Man with Burning Woman (#5418)

[huey735]

I think I have this correct:

* [**Burning Man**](https://github.com/bisq-network/roles/issues/80)

  Gathers the trading fees paid in BTC and uses it to buy BSQ from the market at a set price and burns it.

* [**Arbitrator**](https://github.com/bisq-network/roles/issues/93)

  Third party that adjudicates trades that go beyond mediation. They receive the trader's locked funds and pay as they see fit.



You are right, @mwithm, my proposal only replaces the **Burning Man**.

### Forcing the traders to pay for trading fees in BSQ only

It would cause too much friction. I had that concern in mind when I came up with the above proposal. There would always need to be a trade-zero where the new trader would need to acquire BSQ. How would they pay the trading fees there?

Well with the [new mode for trading involving a single transaction](https://github.com/bisq-network/proposals/issues/279) it would make things easier. But I still believe that it would add more friction to the existing list of pain points that traders encounter when trading on Bisq.

My proposal shifts those pain points to the contributors (**Burning Women**) and leaves the traders unaffected by it. They, the traders, get to carry the weight of a bigger transaction because they need to include the inputs and outputs belonging to the **Burning Woman** but it seems like a fair exchange.

### How to deal with the funds that go to arbitration (delayed payout txs)?

These funds should make themselves back to the legitimate owner the fastest way possible. Sometimes traders just forget that they have a pending trade and the other trader sees themselves forced to open arbitration. In those situations it's clear who deserves most of the funds. The process of having the delayed payout tx point to a _Automatic Market Maker_ doesn't make too much sense to me:

* It still would be a third party controlling those funds
* it would increase the difficulty for the trader in the right to get their funds
* it would increase the time necessary for the trader in the right to get their funds - they would need to make an appeal to the DAO and wait a cycle or practically two for it to take effect. And in the end they would end up with BSQ which they would then have to trade for BTC.

### Regarding RSK

I'm quite ignorant about RSK. And believe that it's fair to extend that to most of Bisq's current protocol developer. From the talks we've had, they seem to be most comfortable staying with BTC for the moment. The existence of examples for P2P multi-party transactions tools like:

* [Bip78](https://bips.xyz/78)
  * [BTCPay server](https://docs.btcpayserver.org/Payjoin/)
  * [Onion78](https://github.com/armins88/Onion78)
  * And the growing number of [wallets accepting these standard](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/PayJoin_adoption)
* [JoinMarket's P2P market for multi-party transactions](https://github.com/JoinMarket-Org/joinmarket-clientserver)
* [Stowaway](https://docs.samourai.io/en/wallet/privacy-enhanced-transactions) - implemented in JAVA
* [Soroban](https://medium.com/samourai-wallet/wallet-update-0-99-96-introducing-soroban-adc9a36a7ddb)




-- 
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/bisq/discussions/5418#discussioncomment-626332
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20210418/8a7901b9/attachment.htm>