-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Reduce maximum trade size for unsigned payment accounts to 0.003 BTC #470
Comments
Generic proposal txid: |
I am working on it |
I didn't remember this pop-up, I calculated 0.003 as "a little more than a half". In this low fee environment, 100 usd looks good, the problem is when btc fees rise. |
For low amounts/high miner fees ppl can use Bisq Easy and LN. Yes, I also assume price will got further up and then we are back in danger zone. Those changes require always a few weeks min or rather 2 months for activating them and can cause some disruption so we should avoid to change it every 6 months. What about changing TOLERATED_SMALL_TRADE_AMOUNT from currently 0.01 BTC to 0.002 BTC (200 USD) Should we change the popup text to mention Bisq Easy? |
It is currently possible to trade >900 USD without signing with risky payment accounts in active markets. When the current limit of 0.01 was set, BTC price was around 40.000 USD so max amount an unsigned account could buy was 400USD and min amount to get signed was 100USD.
I propose to reduce the min-maximum amount that unsigned accounts can buy to 0.00075 BTC and 0.003 BTC. At today's 94.000 USD/BTC price, that would be approximately 70 and 280 USD.
Since account signing and trading limits have been an effective method against fraud, this is the most critical of the three proposals (#467, #469) I have made to adjust Bisq trading limits to BTC price increase, but unlike the other two I have concerns about how easy it is to implement on a technical level. In the previous change discussion, a hard fork was discussed but I don't know if it was finally necessary, as there were doubts about how to implement this critical change with a workaround.
I can't comment on that, but since it was somehow implemented, hopefully it's easier this time.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: