Bitcoin Cash (BCH/BCC)


#1

I want to request the addition of Bitcoin Cash BCH/BCC, although I know bisq has stated they won’t support it.


#2

Have you read this post? https://forum.bisq.io/t/bisq-will-not-list-bcc-bitcoin-cash-bitmaincoin-bitcoin-abc/2608/10

Also this one. https://forum.bisq.io/t/requirements-for-making-a-request-for-adding-an-altcoin-or-token/2966


#3

@SD86gdns9H, while the privacy concerns that @ManfredKarrer originally stated are still every bit as concerning as they originally were, we have introduced a new process by which anyone can submit a pull request that adds any token, including BCH. If a token is controversial, it will be delegated to a stakeholder vote under the Bisq DAO. In any case, please do feel free to submit a PR for it. No one else has done so yet. Thanks.

Please see https://github.com/bisq-network/docs/blob/master/exchange/howto/list-token.adoc.


#4

You guys collect high trading fees and justify that by disparagingly arguing that software doesn’t grow on trees. So why should I develop for you for free and let you collect even more fees on what’s probably the most popular trading pair currently? Do you think my time grows on trees?

Bitcoin Cash is a top 3 cryptocurrency and here to stay. You refusing to implement it for purely ideological reasons while listing three tons of tiny other alts that most people have never heard of severely diminishes the already slim* value of your platform. You backed yourself into a corner and locked yourself out of one of the most lucrative exchange markets and now you want others to fix it for you so you can save face and get out of the corner without giving in?

*based on extremely low liquidity, offers even at 0% difference sitting there for weeks tying up funds and costing significant fees to cancel or adjust.


#5

Read the post from Chris. Nobody has done a PR. So where is the BCH community? Maybe we need to ask Jihan or Roger?


#6

And regarding fees: We have 0.2% for maker and 0.3% or taker at a 1% price distance offer. The high fee complaints came from high mining fees. We will adjust that for the next release so the mining fee should become lower but that is outside of our control basically and in time of tx spam (as it happens right now) the fees are pretty high unfortunately. Yes and those people behind BCH are responsible for the high tx fees. There have been pretty clear evidence that BitMain and associated miners have been spammed the blockchain since years.


#7

Interesting theory :smiley: Don’t you think that if that was the case Bisq developers would just create a new account and add a pull request anonymously?

It is true that Bisq contributors don’t want to add BCH to their software, but the contributors are decentralized and if there was a pull request made it would be put up to a vote in the Bisq DAO that is getting ready to launch on Bitcoin mainnet. After all, it is all open source, just like Bitcoin. If two groups disagree and neither want a compromise then they fork just like with BCH. So anyone can fork Bisq and add BCH if they wish without any voting. No one can stop that. You can call it Bisq Cash if you want :smiley: I just doubt it would take off.


#8

Without ideological reasons Bisq would not exist. I am not in for the money but because I see Bitcoin as a revolutionary technology which has the potential to change the world in an even more profound way than the Internet has done it. Privacy protection is a core value of Bisq and BCH is a perfect way how 99% of the users will lose their privacy.
If all that has “slim* value” to you then you might feel more at home at platforms like Coinbase.


#9

The voting would be just if anyone want to kick it out. By default any coin which fulfill the formal requirements will get added. Even scamcoins like OneCoin. Though with such likely one contributor would make a request to kick it out.

The requirement for an address validation and a PR is a good filter to get those shitcoins not added which have only PR people and are not even capable of the most basic IT task. And as shown in the past many fail on that (and BCH seems to fall into that category if no dev shows up for a PR). So it is good to have that filter.


#10

Read the post from Chris. Nobody has done a PR. So where is the BCH community? Maybe we need to ask Jihan or Roger?

Read my post. Why would there be a pull request? Why should I develop for you for free and let you collect the fees?

those people behind BCH are responsible for the high tx fees.

Manfred, that’s ridiculous. This has been argued to death over the past three years and I really don’t want to get into another blaming contest with you here. Let me just say I disagree, and I would have hoped you’d be above trying to use this forum for pointless fingerpointing.

And your fees ARE high compared to other exchanges, since you charge both on the maker AND taker side and you charge even for canceled and adjusted offers. You keep arguing how people should be paying higher fees for the privacy. That would be all nice and dandy if there was plenty of volume, so offers get filled quickly. Too often that isn’t the case. You need VOLUME on this exchange more than anything. A zero-trade-fee promo for a while might go a long way there, esp. since there are still multiple tx fees. But judging from your other posts, you don’t seem to get the concept of jump-starting a marketplace. The result is out there, languishing.

Privacy protection is a core value of Bisq and BCH is a perfect way how 99% of the users will lose their privacy.

Again, I disagree on your FUD about BCH. And, yes, I have read your Reddit post on that. For the vast majority of users it’s simply not an issue. Do you want to exclude them all? In what twisted logic does “people who use KYC exchanges link their UTXO with their identity” lead to not allowing BCH on Bisq? Are you going to ban anyone who potentially has touched a KYC exchange? Yea… good luck with that. May as well shut down today.

If all that has “slim* value” to you then you might feel more at home at platforms like Coinbase.

The slim value is not from your focus on privacy. Did you read my footnote? It’s very simply the fact that your exchange doesn’t do what its name says it does - exchange. I have two offers open currently at 0% difference, no takers for over a week. In the meantime, the market has moved to the point where I don’t want to sell anymore, but just canceling the orders will cost me dearly. And if I have a larger order, I have to split it up in small chunks, deal with them separately and pay fees on each of them. And the one currency that I really want to trade, I’m not allowed to because it’s against your ideology. What kind of “value” is in such an exchange?

BCH seems to fall into that category if no dev shows up for a PR

Again, why should they work for you for free? You are the one collecting fees, you do the work.


#11

Thank you for all your input and advice @BetterSquare :slight_smile:
Segwit and Lighting network should decrease the fees even for those who are not using them in due time, once they get adopted. So hopefully that will decrease the fees on Bisq as well.

Benefits of adding a coin are mutual for people who want to add a coin and Bisq, therefor the work is split.
The work needed for adding a coin is really minimal, that isn’t really an issue. It is mostly there to show that the coin has support and therefor makes sense to be added on the list so it stops spamming of adding new coins and also in the bigger picture developers can’t spend their valuable time on adding basic address validation tests for every coin as there are hundreds of them.
It isn’t about the work, BCH could be added in minutes, it is just that it gets no special treatment currently. Which it probably would due to it’s market cap if it wasn’t for the developer’s concerns over the problems in crypto ecosystem that forks in general might bring.

Everyone is allowed for their opinion and to put whatever they want and leave whatever they want out of their projects. As I said, no one is stopping a Bisq fork with BCH added and as the volume might be low on Bisq, the fork might be successful. But maintaining Bisq isn’t a one man’s job and it isn’t that easy, so a forker should make sure he has good support before diving into a big project.

Either way, you can agree to disagree with Bisq developers :slight_smile: We are all in this for the same ultimate purpose after all to make cryptocurrencies wide spread and used by every day folks.

I wish your goals in cryptocurrency exchanges gets fulfilled either through Bisq or other projects and I wish you good luck :smiley:


#12

Those are the guys why the fees are high. The mining fee is a much bigger part than the bisq fee. So complain at the BCH guys that with their attacks and spamming they drive up tx fees artificially.
See here for more background: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/curious-case-bitcoins-moby-dick-spam-and-miners-confirmed-it/


#14

Manfred, I’m not going to take that bait. If you like arguing and fingerpointing, may I suggest you take it to Reddit? You’ll find an a lot more eager audience there. You can even pick whether you want to be eagerly supported or eagerly refuted.

I thought this right here was a support forum for Bisq. Perhaps you should leave it at that?


#15

Last comment I promise: :wink:


#16

Making a problem more obvious is not the same as creating the problem in the first place. Now stick to your promise, please.


#17

Last word hey? Bitcoin users (talking Bcash here, b = b grade, not bitcoin, although i dont believe any distinction needs to be made as users that know what the bitcoin idea is are not that dumb) We dont care about the spam because we know who will survive. Speaking of which, users are going to pay the damn fee needed to make their transactions and china coin miners are gonna come to where the money is anyway, thats bitcoin. Live long and capitulate. Just a bisq user - changed from bitsquare long ago!