# Loss of fee on canceled open trade is too expensive

**URL:** <https://bisq.community/t/loss-of-fee-on-canceled-open-trade-is-too-expensive/2146>\
**Category:** Support\
**Created:** [May 31, 2017, 1:07am UTC](https://bisq.community/t/loss-of-fee-on-canceled-open-trade-is-too-expensive/2146 "2017-05-31T01:07:22Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![fresheneesz](https://bisq.community/letter_avatar/fresheneesz/32/6_22734026db12803ebb3e059622ac3534.png) [@fresheneesz](https://bisq.community/u/fresheneesz)\
**Post date:** [May 31, 2017, 8:30pm UTC](https://bisq.community/t/loss-of-fee-on-canceled-open-trade-is-too-expensive/2146/4 "2017-05-31T20:30:07Z")

</div>

Ah, I see. Even if there is a small anti-spam payment, it requires the full transaction fee. Ok. FYI tho, 67 cents is still far too high for anti spam.

Well here’s the thing; Bitsquare does NOT need any anti-spam at the moment. No one is using it. How about we wait until spam is actually becoming a problem before crippling the system with spam prevention mechanisms?

Why don’t you allow a floating spam-fee that can be set to 0? That way arbiters can choose whether or not to accept your open trade, and if the network is too spammy, arbiters can require a small anti-spam-fee they take whether or not the trade goes through in addition to a larger fee they get only if the trade _does_ go through. The likely scenario is that 0btc anti-spam-fees will be widely accepted for the larger success-fee.

This would allow people to freely list offers on bitsquare while the network is small without any risk. Once the network is large, anti-spam fees can be organically introduced in a market-driven way.

---

_[View the full topic](https://bisq.community/t/loss-of-fee-on-canceled-open-trade-is-too-expensive/2146)._