I have a proposal that doesn’t need any software changes. It consists on publishing an extension to the offer on additional info, where the maker offers to exchange with high security deposits and Mutual Assured Destruction using a 2of2 multisig account created outside Bisq (using email and electrum).
The current Trading and Arbitration Rules for F2F doesn’t consider or forbids an option like this, but I think it’s a good option for those who preffer to trust Mutual Assured Destruction instead of classic Bisq protocol, for a payment method where arbitrators “won’t have a way to settle disputes”. The biggest concern I have is how Bisq should proceed with this kind of offers in case of dispute. I think that Bisq should only focus on the 2of3 multisig, current protocol part, which would be still valid. On the second part of the trade, Bisq should laissez-faire to the users who aggree to trade in other conditions. In fact, this philosphy still fits the way Bisq is handling F2F trades: funds may be held indefinitely, or until both parties can reach an agreement.
This illustrates how could be an offer of this kind:
This is very interesting. A standard could very well be decided and we could use F2F’s description field to mark the transactions on Bisq. There’d need to be a marketing of this function in order for to people to know that it’s available.
Is there really need to be a proposal since this can be done outside Bisq?
I think we just need to establish a standard to mark the orders on Bisq, a platform for communication between the traders and an overall step by step for people to set up the multisig.
I think that is not a trivial change to specifically allow Bisq traders to exchange at their own risk because it’s not entirely outside Bisq. For me it’s fine to make the proposal, but I’ll do it once I have a solid idea of what could it be.
We use Bisq for a first trade and advertise that we’re willing to trade even more but outside Bisq and using a 2-out-of-2 MAD protocol.
We use Bisq just as a bulletin board for off-Bisq trades. Here we the taker wouldn’t need to take the trade on Bisq, instead they would reach out to the maker through the info provided in the trade description and there they’d decide the terms of their trade. And the maker would simply cancel the offer on Bisq.
The maker would need to make the trade unattractive for people not interested in the MAD protocol. This can be achieved by setting the trade amount to something very low and the security deposit to a very high percentage. This would also allow the maker to not have to lock high amounts of BTC. The real trade amount could be advertised in the “City” or “Optional additional” fields.
Either of these don’t require immediate changes on the Bisq software, although it’d be nice if they required less mining fees.
It should be the first scenario. We cannot risk to have someone claiming that he accepted a deal on the software but it was fake for any reason, or the opposite, someone claiming that someone is not following the protocol stated in the order he made.
Spam would be something to take into account for scenario 2. Anti-spam measures are related to distance to bitcoinaverage price, and I guess we cannot disable them.
The worst for scenario 1 is that users would have two deals in one, so double effort and double mining fees.
For both scenarios, when dealing with MAD there’s no arbitration so there’s no point in looking to Bisq for arbitration. The point of MAD is that those two people deal with each other, so your worries seem unwarranted.
The minimum trade amount allowed is 10,000sats. The minimum security for Taker Buyer is 100,000sats and for Taker Seller is 500,000sats. Plus the security deposit which can be set up up to 50% of the trade amount for the Buyer. So you can use that to craft an offer that should discourage anybody from accepting it by accident.
The biggest problem I find to make a deal with this protocol is that you need to send a transaction from two different addresses at the same time to a 2of2 multisig account, or the first to send has the risk of having the funds locked and could be target of extorsion from the other part. The creation of the 2of2 multisig account is quite easy with Electrum, but sending a transaction with inputs from 2 different private keys is not.
I explored the possibility of doing it with coinb.in wallet: It’s not impossible, but I only managed to use legacy transactions and the creation of the transaction is specially difficult for a person with basic knowledges of Bitcoin.
For this to be a serious proposal, we need to find a reliable tool that helps creating this kind of transactions. Otherwise I think that if it’s ever needed, the way should be to create it integrated on Bisq but I assume it’s not an easy task.
