And no, it’s not the same.
The risks are not zero in either case.
For a centralised exchange, I have to trust my funds to the exchange. But it is a well established operation. A known threat, if you will.
For bisq, the risk is unknown because I know nothing about the person to whom I am sending my fiat, and I am faced with a protracted arbitration that may or may not be successful within a system that I don’t yet trust, because, you know, I’m a newcomer to bisq and maybe even bitcoin.
AFAICS, the only way bisq is ever going to grow much is to enable new entrants to the market via EASY exchange of fiat for crypto. In fact, all cryptos themselves have to deal with this problem. Hence third party sites charging over the odds for exchange of fiat for crypto.
So, a new user, maybe new to crypto, I am going to have to
install Bisq, and learn how to use it,
EDIT: And install Firefox and learn how to use it, if they don’t already.
EDIT EDIT ok, so there is a Chrome extension, too. Just their blurb that only mentions firefox.
install PageSigner, and learn how to use it,
use PageSigner correctly to make a fiat payment to a complete stranger, who knows where,
and potentially have to
use PageSigner correctly to prove the payment was made,
await a decision from an arbitrator that may or may not go in my favour, AFAIK.
But no, there’s no barrier to entry to the cryptosphere via this system.
Stop kidding yourselves, please.
You have to put yourselves in the position of your potential users/customers and solve their problems, or you will have a very limited uptake.
PS:
It’s not that I don’t think Bisq is a great idea. Just that it’s new and needs tweaking.
I really like it, I do. But I think this problem is something that needs fixing here, or people are going to solve this problem/ do this elsewhere, which is automatically a barrier to entry, and exposes potential users to other ecosystems/service providers that may irreversibly capture these users.
and
not that PageSigner isn’t otherwise useful, of course.
I’d never heard of it, and will possibly start using it myself for many things. So, thanks
EDIT: Except it’s only available in Firefox, and I’m a Chrome user.
EDIT EDIT ok, so there is a Chrome extension, too. Just their blurb that only mentions firefox.
This is why right now there are only 5 trades to buy btc with fiat, all of which are at least 25% over the market rate.
And that is looking at the five currencies I could trade in BRL, EUR, USD, CHF, and GBP.
AND I would have to pay all the transactions fees.
AND I would have to take the risk of fiat transfer to some stranger’s bank account.
You need users to get liquidity to get these spreads down.
The trust in bitsquare is not the trust in the other trader, it is a trust in a arbitrator that you choose. The arbitrator could be just as well established as an centralized exchange, so there is no downfall there. Furthermore, the arbitrator is never fully trusted as the BTC is locked in the mutlisig. Also you should understand that in normal situation, arbitrator should play any role. The complete trade is done by users themselves.
You kinda have to learn how to use anything before using it. It is created to be as intuitive as developers knew.
Now this does not really go for that many cases. This is only if the trade goes in dispute (which there are incentives for both traders not to go, security deposits) and only if you use fiat to btc transfer and you are a buyer. Also the arbitrator will guide you on how to use it correctly, as that is in he’s job, to have happy clients.
There is a barrier to entry, no one is disputing that. Just it should be too hard to go over it, that is all.
PS: There is really only one developer here so we (and he himself probably) are all users.
I agree with the spirit of your sayings. There is risk in trusting the other end of the transaction.
But there are amount limits to bisq for that reason exactly. In exchanges like Kraken, Poloniex, Bitfinex, etc there are no limits other than those enforced by your account tier. After that you have to trust a third party to keep your funds safe and there are plenty of events when lots of people lost huge amounts of money because these custodian exchanges weren’t functioning very custodial regarding other people’s assets. (I remind you the most recent event with the long delays in serving customers leading again in big loses - some said it might was DoS attack, but who cares? The bottom line is that none could see what was happening with their money.)
Cryptos have one very special, unique, and original feature and that is the fact that they give you absolutely total control of your funds. This feature will eventually lead people in becoming more responsible regarding their funds. Up until now you trusted your government, private banking foundations, and laws to protect you from being ripped off. You had no responsibility whatsoever and no benefits other than safe keeping.
So here is the first dilemma: Third party safe keeping with minimum benefits (banks) or your own seed words, total control, and higher risks?
For cryptocoin users this isn’t even a dilemma. We are all here because this is what we want.
Bisq trading is no more risky than trading in custodial exchanges. Again you swap your trust on some company (that they will be honest and solid) with your own responsibility (controlling what you own).
So here is the next dilemma: Trust custodial exchanges or your trading peers in bisq?
But if you chose cryptos over fiat money because you want control of your funds, then why trust a private company over a decentralised exchanging platform?
Let’s be honest. We can’t have total control without total responsibility.
I want both. Bisq does not give me that if I have to trust fiat with a potential bad actor.
And it’s not like sending fiat to some unknown guy is okay outside of Bisq, either, right?
It’s a know risk.
People manage that risk appropriately, by not doing it.
Why would they change their behaviour when trading inside Bisq?
Answer: only when Bisq eliminates that risk by not requiring sending fiat to an unknown and untrusted party.
Now, I guess it’s maybe the case that it is impossible to implement in Bisq without some kind of escrow account.
Or at least, the community won’t support setting up such.
In which case, most of the
Look, you might be a nice guy. Same for everyone else already using Bisq.
But, even if everyone currently using Bisq is okay, it definitely won’t stay that way forever.
If new users and their fiat flowing freely into the Bisq ecosystem is a desired outcome, then getting fiat into Bisq needs to be easier and safer.
All this (blockchain, cryptos) is still new tech. We are all still first adopters.
As for wanting both total control and absolutely zero responsibility, in my country we use to say “You can’t have the whole pie and the dog fed”. You always sacrifice something for something.
Besides tell me who offers both? Custodial exchanges? Today they are here, tomorrow they might be in Cayman islands enjoying other peoples’ money.
Bisq gives you total control in exchange for holding you totally responsible for your actions and your assets.
Custodial exchanges give you minimal control (like banks) in exchange for a lot less responsibility.
We’ve seen banking institutions, we’ve been living with them for centuries, and their cycle is nearing to a closure (hopefully). On my behalf I don’t want another replacement for banks. I want to control my belongings and decide myself how and when to use them.
For now crypto-trading has to pass through the existing banking-bargaining system. I have cash (whether in a bank account or in physical form), you have cryptos, we have to find a bridge on which we will meet and exchange. Bisq is one of those bridges. Unfortunately there will be a few occasions when one of two parts will try to cheat. This is unavoidable, as it is even with fiat money (forgeries, scams, etc). But not for long (if cryptos prevail).
One of the reasons why cryptos can prevail over fiat currency is their ability to provide trust between unfamiliar parties. When (and if) crypto-economy becomes more widespread, exchanges in platforms like bisq will be mainly between altcoin holders, without the need for a bank-bridge to interfere and without the need for PageSigners or tamper proof evidence.
That is why we need to support platforms like bisq.
It was you implied we could have both!
We can’t have one without the other, you said.
Well, Bisq does not yet give both.
Other exchanges may not also, but is than a reason for Bisq not to do both? No, of course not.
All I am saying is that to maximise uptake Bisq needs to eliminate or at least reduce barriers. Having to trust unknown actors, possibly bad, with fiat is such a barrier.
Someday, when everyone is used to Cryptos, and fiat is maybe on the wane, we may be in a situation where barriers to fiat only owners do not matter. But that day is not now, and is a long way off.
i propose an elegant solution, integrate bisq as a dating and bitcoin trading site.
once you have dated and trust the other person, then it unlocks the possibility to trade bitcoin with them.
oh hang on…if you trust this person why dont trade with them face to face and not use bisq?
bisq and bitcoin etc are here to minimise risk between untrused parties…since you dont explain the risk threat in detail this is almost feeling like a troll.
No exchange platform does that.[quote=“NameWithheld, post:27, topic:1979”]
Let’s be honest. We can’t have total control without total responsibility.
[/quote]
Meaning:
We can’t keep total control of our assets without being totally responsible for anything that happens to our assets.
Opposite:
We can pass control of our assets to others and expect these others to bear responsibility to whatever happens to our assets.
You don’t need to trust the other trader, you trust the arbitrator that you choose.
Both traders have a security deposit locked up in a multisig with an arbitrator and if one doesn’t follow the protocol the other gets his security deposit. This is what the security in Bitsquare is based on.
You’re just not getting it.
Rightly or wrongly, everyone trust in fiats, even you, in that the the fiat system protects you from bad actors, mostly.
And, yes, I know that every fiat ultimately collapses. That’s not the type of trust we are talking about.
The point is that everyone rightly perceives it is dangerous to send fiat to an unknown outside of a trusted platform. Hence ebay’s rules, paypal, amazon sellers, etc.
That makes it a barrier to their entry.
And, they won’t know the arbitrator or the efficacy of the arbitration system, either
Apologies if I got it wrong, but you accept centralise exchanges as an established and trustworthy operation. Correct?
If yes, then what you say is that you prefer to trust your funds to custodial exchanges in order to buy and sell altcoins because the possibility of them being corrupt is smaller than the possibility of trading with a trader in bisq which will eventually try to rip you off.
IMHO the possibility of loosing funds in both cases is roughly the same.
In case you trust your funds to a custodial exchange and they prove to be untrustworthy, then you’ll probably lose all your funds.
On the other hand, in bisq you risk trading with a corrupt peer and in case the dispute goes wrong for you, you risk losing only the funds you put in this trade.
In bisq a way to check your peer’s trustworthiness is by how many trades they have in bisq. That is surely a way to chose someone which is less possible to do something against you. You can avoid first time traders and big trades. Avoiding the combination of both is even better.
How about this to increase confidence when exchanging fiat, and so reduce the trust barrier.
And yes, I know that this will increase the inconvenience barrier I already cited, but I think new (and existing, for that matter, but especially new) entrants will be willing to exchange that inconvenience for the increased confidence.
How about using a trusted (i.e. the kind of institution trusted by the fiat seller for security and both he and the crypto seller for privacy) third party for this type of transaction that will provide the fiat holding service for a (very) small fee, payable by the fiat seller?
I use a forex company for similar service when I make transfers from the UK to France. Of course, I anyway trust the end payee, which is myself.
The fiat doesn’t go in the multisig, yes, but the security deposit does. Both sides have to place a security deposit in BTC. That means the other trader does have something to lose if he does not send the fiat. That is the point.[quote=“NameWithheld, post:37, topic:1979”]
How about using a trusted (i.e. the kind of institution trusted by the fiat seller for security and both he and the crypto seller for privacy) third party for this type of transaction that will provide the fiat holding service for a (very) small fee, payable by the fiat seller?
[/quote]
The problem with that is that there is not a multisig fiat transaction. You will have to place more trust in one party than this way.
PS: In future there will be customizable security deposit so you can cover the entire trade if that is your concern. Probably the only reason that it does not require it always to be completely covered is that it is not profitable for the other trader not to go with a trade if he can just exchange it back later plus keep the security deposit.
Okay, but the security deposit is much lower than the trade, so the risked fiat is just the trade minus the deposit, rather than the trade.
It’s still biased against the fiat seller.
From the fiat seller’s point of view, they are risking their capital with an unknown actor and an arbitration system that may or may not work for them.
