Regarding reputation (10):
How should those number be distributed and verified? Locally we have that and you can verify the trades you did with another peer but if you get a P2P network message stating that 2 peers have traded you would need to look up the blockchain to verify the txs and get a proof that those are the peers who made those txs. The trade statistics objects carry such partially but don’t contain data which would reveal the identities of the traders (no onion or any other data where you could link them). Otherwise you would have privacy implications… Global reputation in a decentralized environment is hard or impossible without breaking privacy. At least I have not seen any idea yet who it could work (WoT might be still the best we can get).
To the rest:
It reminds me on the idea for a P2P lending market which was motivated by the problem or first time traders who have no BTC to pay the deposit and fees. Also there it was intentionally left to the users to find a secure way how to make the deal and Bisq would be only the meeting place (Craigslist like) without any security tools.
Implementing such is not very difficult but (as mostly UI work) time consuming enough to not make it without testing real demand for that. That’s why I started a Forum thread about lending small amounts for first time users to see if there is a demand and if it can work without security tools.
The result?
Demand was low (one request every few months) and most of those who used it did not pay back. I stopped after a while to give those small loans as it was just lost money and I did not had time to remind them to pay back after weeks…
Sure a F2F trade has other context and with it’s physical character has additional security aspects.
I personally doubt that there is a large enough market of those people with the profile you describe to get the network effect and liquidity. Bisq network will not help so much if only 1% of Bisq users would use such a F2F trade because of lack of security. I personally would not, I would prefer to ask at meetups to trade F2F with people I know or other friends know. That comes with “more or less working” real life reputation but of course can fail as well as I badly experienced.
All that said I am not against to implement it if anyone wants to work on it. I just doubt that the effort is worth the result, but maybe I am wrong? But feel free to work on it!
But I want to emphasize that those discussions are really valuable as they have already delivered 2 interesting protection features: Using past bank transfers as form of KYC and the live steaming with an arbitrator (though I agree that it does not sound very feasible).
So hopefully some day the “perfect” solution comes up so we really get a solution for a secure F2F trade option!
I happen to be in Germany, and was hoping to use the “Starter Package” loan method to help me and a friend get started. I appreciate the heads up before i started looking into F2F/LCBTC system @erizo.
I realized that Localbitcoins is requiring to verify your identity before even posting a F2F exchange.
I felt that the way Localbitcoins worked was good ennough, because you could enter the web through TOR, use a disposable mail and protect your privacy this way. Now it’s impossible. In fact, they are incentivizing the use of fake documents.
I imagined that this model, pressured by regulation and looking for profit (F2F exchanges could not be monetized) would end bad, but that after this, another place would be used. But I don’t thing there’s one, while the need is still there because exchange of cash for btc is still the best privacy protective method.
I think it’s pointless to have arbitrators involved in F2F, especially if bisq wants to be as decentralized as possible.
Seems to me, the best way it could work on bisq is with 2of2 full deposit escrow, and clear warnings of greatest risk.
If i remember right the BlackHalo guys made a very convincing argument for it on a pod a few years ago. Might have been on LetsTalkBitcoin, but don’t remember where.
Their position, if i understand correctly, is that it’s best to eliminate arbitrators in any kind of bitcoin trade:
I started Bisq in the very beginning with that 2of2 Multisig idea as well but Adam Gibson discovered a conceptual flaw in it which could be ignored if the project is small but which would lead to a failure if the project gets bigger and attracts those who abuse any security flaw.
It is that there is always a asymmetric balance of what a buyer or seller has to lose as the seller has to put the BTC in and the fiat transfer takes time and it is not an atomic transaction. So the one who has less to lose has a game-theoretical incentive to abuse his power position by extorting the peer. E.g. If I Alice has 1 BTC locked in and Bob 1.1 BTC Alice could extort Bob to never sign the payout and Bob would lose 0.1 more than Alice.
She can ask Bob to send her 0.05 BTC so Bob is losing only 0.05 BTC instead having locked up 1.1 forever.
At the moment, I’d be happy if I could use a Bitcoin specialized ad service to post F2F ad offers near to me. I’m going to check if using Openbazaar for this is a possibility.
