In an active trade where I’m selling 0.15 BTC as taker, my Bisq v0.8.0 says the amount to receive is 543.00 EUR. However, my trading peer sent me 542.84 EUR.
I think this is a violation of Bisq’s protocol, but I haven’t involved an arbitrator yet, because it appears what my peer did was multiply our contract amount by the contract trade price, i.e. (0.15 btc) * (3618.9153 EUR) = 542.84 EUR. So, I see the logic of what my peer did, but on the face of it I think its not according to the bisq trading protocol.
Two questions:
(1.) should I confirm payment receipt even though the fiat amount doesn’t match what the bisq user interface says it should be? (would my peer have paid me more that the user interface by doing the same calculation if the exact math said he’d owed 543.16, or did my peer only send the incorrect fiat amount because it was slightly in his or her favor?)
(2.) should bisq’s JSON format contracts be revised to explicitly state the fiat amount to be received?
I’m inclined to confirm payment receipt - we’re talking about a 0.16 EUR difference here - but I want to follow the correct protocol.
Interesting issue. I doubt that many people would even go trough the trouble of multiplying two numbers for such a low amount of money.
It is possible that the other trader got confused or something.
You could open a dispute just to tell the arbitrator to notify the buyer about this issue, even though you don’t miss that small amount this time.
Maybe this is due to the older client that didn’t do the rounding to full euro/dollar amounts. Can’t remember exactly how that was implemented but sounds like a reasonable cause.
Right. I’m running the current client. But what’s supposed to happen if someone with an older client is my peer on a trade… I thought that the 0.8.0 improved privacy protocol would have precedence. However, in the JSON contract the rounded value wasn’t stated, even in the current bisq client. Perhaps that wasn’t updated when the new privacy improvement was added to the bisq protocol?
At any rate, the arbitrator helped us complete the trade satisfactorily for both parties. I simply flagged the issue here in case its highlighted a yet-to-be-found/fixed bug.