[bisq-network/bisq] Add option to make trade 'reason' less obvious (#2869)

[Conza]

> Have there been actual cases where the trade ID caused accounts to be banned?

It's strongly suspected. Transferwise mass account deactivations. Above analyses for e.g. Spain, where approx 40% of standard descriptions are blank. 

> I don't agree on the point, that I as a seller have the possibility now to define the trade rules. The buyer can initiate the payment as soon as it is confirmed on the block chain. I would have to contact him before.

One proposal was having an "Alternate Trade ID" field that the seller could specify as maker, and then the taker could choose to use or not. That would be post taking offer. For a variety of reasons, it was shifted to no trade ID. 

If offers were to specify BEFORE what trade ID they wanted to be used etc, I think that'd do far more to discourage offers being taken in the first place, with no possibility of providing feedback to maker (seller). "Hey, I want your offer but I don't like the TRADE ID you want me to use, it sucks etc." 

At least post taking - there's more likelihood trade goes through in an acceptable way for both. 

As a buyer, I often ask the seller before sending if they want me to use a reason or blank. Perhaps having a checkbox when making the offer "Please consult about 'reason for payment' before sending" would assist? That way it is known/communicated if maker just wants it sent asap and does not care about a reason for payment field... OR if they are bulk trader, want something in there. 

Worst case though, taker sends fiat before discussing. Can just get him to chargeback/cancel it, and re-do.

-- 
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/issues/2869#issuecomment-774795719
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20210207/f2d83696/attachment.htm>