I received payment to my bank today, for a Bitcoin sell transaction of yesterday with details which were similar but different to what I was told would be used.
I remember in the pop-ups on Bitsquare to open a support ticket if this happens?
The payment received was not from the bank sort code in the transaction, but rather from something called ‘The Currency Cloud’ and was called a ‘Counter payment’.
I should add also, that there was the Bitsquare reference added and the sub-details did include the name I was expecting too. It was just the transaction name that differed. Hope that’s clear?
Is this safe? It sounds like a cash over the counter thing, but I’ve never heard of this before.
Well, it was a long time with no support reply, so decided to confirm the payment rather than keep the poor guy waiting.
Now run into yet another unexpected delay with this transaction, which seems redundant and is:
‘Wait until peer finalizes the payout transaction’. The message says the other peer may be offline. In fact the peer is very much online though, but is apparently not at the computer to click confirm or whatever. Who knows.
Why am I being kept waiting to receive my deposit back? My part of the transaction is concluded. What if the other peer’s computer breaks down or he doesn’t do anything for the next few weeks?
Technically, you could or should have opened a dispute. The contract defines the payment method that has to be used. This is quite critical because the other trader could have chosen a pm that can be easily charged back.
In these early days I’d assume the other trader to be honest, but this has to be made clear. You MUST follow the protocol or you’ll probably lose your funds.
I had no reply to this query for over a day and it was about 9 hours after I originally posted it that I decided that it was legit.
Looking at the other received faster payments in the account, they also say ‘Counter Payment’ too, so there’s no way to tell the source really. The references were all there, but just the name itself was different, although included in the sub-details of the transaction.
But, yeah next time I will do a Ctrl-O then, if there’s any doubt.
BTW this transaction is STILL not finalised (after confirming receipt of the payment at least 30 hours ago and counting), and my deposit is still hanging in limbo!
Why? The peer IS online (I opened another thread about this).
Just to chime in here a similar problem happened to me. I started a trade as BTC Sell/Taker. I received the money in my bank account, I then went to the trade and clicked the ‘Confirm payment received’ and on the right side of the window it changed to ‘Wait until peer finalizes the payout transaction’. But this never happened. Now the trade expired and has gone to ‘Dispute opened’. But this trade isn’t in dispute! I tried to finalize it and would really like to! Also, now I replied to the arbitrator message but the Support pane at the bottom it’s just been saying ‘Sending message’ for many hours now.
Now that I’m thinking about this I have a guess as to what’s going on. I don’t know the underlying architecture of how this works, but it’s starting to seem to me that if both participants in a trade don’t have their software up and running and connected at the same time then a trade cannot settle. If that’s the case then this is going to be a recurring problem and for lots of people. I run the client on my laptop and my laptop is only up and running generally speaking consistently during daylight hours Mon-Fri and sometimes outside of that. I think for anyone that wants to rest orders in the market this points to a need to have a headless node that can be run on some machine that’s always up and a then a GUI that can connect to it–I would imagine the GUI can refactored to either run the node as part of the GUI or connect to a remote one.
The “Wait until peer finalizes the payout transaction” state means that the other peers app needs to publish the payout transaction. If he is not online the message will be stored in the P2P network and as soon he goes online it will be executed.
If that state never gets completed it might be that the peer was not online the whole time. Or a bug caused the issue that the message did not arrive (not aware of a bug in that area but might be).
Hmmm, ok. So the trade is now complete but maybe there’s a way to get things done faster? Like if there were a mechanism to submit a message to the counterparty just to ping them? I’m a bit surprised because I can’t imagine that in the 6 days or so after I clicked to confirm payment I would have thought the person who paid me money would have opened up their bitsquare client at least once or twice to see if the transaction had been completed. If you’d like more information about the trade to dig deeper and see if it could be a bug I’ll provide it. Also it was weird that when I replied to the arbitrator query the status on the bottom continued to say “sending mesage”. In this case I left my laptop powered up overnight just to give the message a chance to get through.
A out of system notifiaction is planned for the future where you get an email or text msg for important events.
Did the trade gets completed without dispute? If so then the othere peer really was not online all the time. The one who receives the trade amount (btc buyer) is the one who should be more interested to get the funds out so it should happen rarely that the user does not return to the app earlier.
Please note, I used the phrase ‘What appears to be happening…’. If this is working as designed then it’s lame (IMHO), if not, then it’s a bug obviously.
In my case, the peer was online for the whole time that I was waiting for the transaction to finalise. I know that because I’d tagged him, and he had other open offers available the whole time.
I had exactly the same error message as BlueCustard here i.e. ‘Wait until peer finalizes the payout transaction’.
I gather from the arbitration that followed (no other option), that the buyer was similarly waiting!
It shouldn’t be necessary to send messages outside of the system to confirm what should be happening automatically as I emphasised in the other thread. The seller confirming he has received the funds should be the trigger that ends the transaction whether the buyer is online or not (again IMHO).
Whether the buyer is online or not is irrelevant. If I make a fiat payment to someone’s bank, the payment still exists whether they acknowledge it or not.
I’m with you on this one, if the coins are already held and the person receiving the fiat acknowledges receipt then the transaction should proceed automatically to complete you’d think. If I had to guess (I’ve written an obligation protocol myself that is based on digital signatures) the things that’s probably waiting is for the counterparty’s digital signature on the “this transaction is now concluded” message. Is that correct?
I still feel, like BitConcerned, that there maybe some bug happening, I don’t think that it was the case that for 6 days the counterparty just never opened the client. The trade did get completeted, yes, but a dispute was opened. I don’t have the exact messages but when I opened up my laptop on the day the trade expired it said that the trade had expired and my Support pane showed that there was an open dispute. I had also received a message from the arbitrator which I replied to. But even now the support ticket is still Open. And at the bottom beside the Send (greyed out) and Add attachments button it says “Sending message”. So… my message was never received by the arbitrator?
In my transaction log it shows “dispute payout” where I received back the 0.01 deposit.
It’s difficult to work out exactly what is intended to happen as opposed to what actually does happen (and might be because of bugs), as the white paper doesn’t go into enough detail unfortunately.
If, as you think, the delay might be caused by the need for the buyer’s signature to confirm the seller’s confirmation (?), it would again seem to be yet another unnecessary step?
I tried to explain why in the other thread. Basically, when the buyer has sent his confirmation that he has sent the fiat funds, his end of the offer is fulfilled and signed for at that point. He’s just waiting to receive his BTC.
So, the final step i.e. the seller confirming he’s received the fiat funds, should trigger an end by to the offer and set the ball rolling, i.e. send the BTC to the buyer. I see no logical reason why the buyer has to be online at any time at all during this final step if he’s already signed his part of the offer previously.
But, as things stand, I don’t know if the protocol is working as designed and inefficient, or at least could be improved, or is bugged in some way?
I am on vacations so I cannot follow up all conversations here.
The reason for the finalize step is because the payout transaction supports locktime.
Atm that is set to 0 but we can activate that if needed for protection against chargebacks. The locktime requires the blockheight and the seller when he confirms takes that blockheight and signs then the payout. Then the buyer gets the same locktime and signs his part. If he would sign already when he confirms payment started then the locktime would be different between both and the tx invalid. As you don’t know in advance when the seller confirms receipt there is no other way to do that.
We might optimize that in future so that only if a locktime is activated that we use that path of the protocol, but that is a major code change and is not planned soon.
Beside that I got not too many disputes with that problem. In earlier versions there have been bugs but currently I am not aware of bugs in the delivery of the messages.
Beside that I would prefer a bit of a different tone in your communication style. It comes with quite an arrogant attitude and the motivation to spend my limited time to answer decreases.
Just for your info: I am working off my ass since 2,5 years without getting paid anything basically and if you come with the attitude that any imperfection is a huge drama and needs to get blamed, then I prefer to ignore your messages in future.
You are welcome for respectful critics and contribution. But some of your comments lack at least of respect.
Well I hope none of my comments offended, I’m very pro-Bitsquare and have great interest in seeing it succeed (in volume, I believe it has succeeded technically already). I’m just interested in helping out
I’m having a similar problem now. Just sent EUR to purchase bitcoin. Currency has landed in their account. Now I’m presented with the message “Your trading peer opened a support ticket due to technical problems”
It is a little unnerving the exchange does not occur at the same time. Hoping it works out soon!!
