Dear friends,
I have bisq installed for a quite long time now. The 3 last trades for BTC/BRL is me buying (Dec 2017 and Sep 2017). Now I tried to make a new buy and I’m not allowed, since my limit is now 0.125 BTC!
Is this a decentralized tool or what? Don’t you trust your method/tool to allow trading on a reasonable limit?
I can’t believe this is correct, I hope you can fix this soon.
All the best.
This limit is for new accounts only, but also applies to older account before this update to the protocol was made. It is unfortunate in your situation that you stopped trading just before this change was made.
In 30 days your limit will double and in 60 days it will double again. For now you just need to make multiple trades if you want to trade bigger amounts.
Thanks for the response. However, as you can see there is only one sell offer in BRL and I cannot take it because my trading limit does not allow it. The last order taken, was me and was in December 2017! With this limitation, the guy offering that sell is lost. In essence, no one can take the order for the next 2 months…
People use bisq because it is supposed to be decentralized and secure. What you are doing is to put people in a kindergarten, telling what you can and cannot do. That is just sad for the sake of liberty (originally) in the goals of the tool and definitely is one of the reasons of the very small volume you see.
Who decided to have this kind of limit? Limit in 1 BTC or even 0.5 BTC maybe OK, but limit in 0.125 BTC can only be a joke.
You can always create an offer and that other trader might take yours.
The limit really isn’t stopping people from trading bigger amounts, it just makes them divide it in few more trades.
It is unfortunately taking a certain power from the user, but alternative would be to give more information to the user instead and let them make a decision. This might just make the offerbook too messy. It isn’t a problem when there are few offers, but for more offers it could be a bit too much. I don’t know, it is up for debate of course.
Manfred, the founder, decided to put this limit in place to increase security on the platform, but he could always change his mind of course, if there is a good reason and he has time to implement it.
Indeed, I can create a new offer but I beg to differ. If I create a new offer I can get my deposit stuck in a market with one trade every 3 months (BTC/BRL). That seller will loose the fees for his offer if he decides to take my offer. Ultimately I can loose my fees if I get tired of waiting (with my funds stuck) and drop my offer.
What I’m advocating is in favor of the very basic libertarian rules. If you impose artificial limits you introduce friction in the system and this friction rises the costs making people look for less friction somewhere else. This is also true in every physics law there is. Maximum efficiency is only achieved with no (or minimum) artificial restrictions.
Just my 2 cents.
Well, thank you for your feedback. I am sure Manfred will keep it in mind if he sees this 
I think it is a good time to pick it up again;
Around 15 days and ~30 Trades closed and only to fill my bank account with 80€ transactions to by bitcoin, that’s truly kindergarten!
This is not acceptable: “Hey trader wait 60 days if you can, pay 8% for your bitcoin and don’t forget there is still a kindergarten limit” It is only logic to go elsewhere and the Tendency could be better if the bisq app were up to the task to handle the right people!
Don’t know what the founders intention was but hey trading is and will be always a risk!
So what about an implementation of an reward system or acceptance between traders?
Bisq for traders also or poor man only, surely must not be the case!
The reason for trading limits is to reduce the damage in case of chargeback. Chargeback is also why paypal is not accepted at Bisq.
Most P2P exchanges use reputation systems that might work most of the time, but sybil attacks make it easy to gain fake reputation, and that’s why they usually allow as an extra measure a kind of KYC. Bisq uses security deposits (main reason is that collateral is more private than reputation), and for those methods where chargebacks are not easy but possible, account signing, which is a integrity verification (the account data you filled at Bisq is the same you’re using to pay) because the main reason that these payment methods justify for a chargeback is a stolen account.
If someone steals an account, he won’t like having these limits and probably will go somewhere else, he needs to empty the stolen account quickly.
These are disadvantages of working with unreliable payment methods. Would Bisq onboarding and trading volume improve if there were no trading limits? Yes, but it would be at cost of security. Before account signing, Bisq had a couple of chargebacks and it’s something very annoying. Nobody likes trading limits, but chargebacks are worst.
Yep well said.
A distributed exchange is not an easy thing to make. You can tell by the lack of them. Bisq chooses to play it safe and keep things slightly restricted to help mitigate some of the risks that are inherent with integrating old legacy systems with bitcoin.
It’s better to play it safe and avoid charge backs and complications then to open the flood gates in the name of freedom and liberty and end up breaking the entire platform. This is a marathon, slow and steady wins here,
Also as markets need to develop. As more users start to enter these obscure markets, better payment methods with less chargeback risks may come to light.