[bisq-network/proposals] Federated trade fee aggregators (#329)

[huey735]

@chimp1984 @sqrrm Is there a way to make the trade transactions not public? In the current the protocol the Deposit transaction includes an OP_RETURN output with the hash of the trade's contract. Why is that? Plus it has a very distinct relationship with its previous and following transaction. Making the whole trade have a significant fingerprint.

If we are to always rely on the BTC blockchain to public stamp the following is unavoidable with Fee Abgregator (FA) or not:

>The FA would learn about the trade history of the users which have choosen that FA, right? If so that would be a serious problem.

It would always be trivial to find Bisq trade transactions.


>It has been suggested that a third party could be part of trades to burn BSQ for trade fee and receive BTC as compensation as part of the trade transaction. **This still doesn't eliminate the problem of low value txouts**.

The proposal to [Replace Burning Man with Burning Woman](https://github.com/bisq-network/bisq/discussions/5418) suggests the use of coinjoins. So the Burning Woman would provide a BTC input of her own and get a BTC output in the same transactions. Avoiding this way the creation of lots of small utxos that would need to be consolidated in the future.

-- 
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/329#issuecomment-835328476
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20210508/077f52a8/attachment.htm>