No, not for me:
"Bisq v 0.53 calculate a maker fee for 2 btc for altcoin
10% distance 12649 bit
5% distance 8944 bit
2% distance 5657 bit
1% distance 4000 bit
0.1 % fee of 2 btc maker order (limit order) on viaBTC: A fixed fee 0.002 btc = 2000 bit where the distance don’t cost."
4000 to 12649 bit IS more then 2000 bit.
Well, that’s 0.2%, Double of something very small is still something small, I think it’s not an excessive fee, we move at very small intervals. ViaBTC may have a smaller fee, but I do not trust exchange. It is not confidential. ViaBTC can be closed or banned by the government tomorrow at this time, what prevents it? Has happened so many times, with so many exchanges centralized that already tires, is enough. If you find the fees high, surely when Bisq has a good volume will come down.
Yes good point. Small trade amounts will increase the total fee in %. Average trade amount is about 0.5 BTC, so with that value and depending on the actual miner fee it is close to the target.
You have to ask yourself also how centralized exchanges taking low fees are earning their money. Regulation is also about order matching. That is an area where a centralized exchange can quite easily make their revenue (front running, wash trading,…). Manipulation to trigger stop losses etc. are other areas. There are some investigations regarding Bitfinex in that area. I don’t know much about it as I did not follow it much but its not surprising if they make money if they can. Regulation of stock exchanges was created for some reasons to limit those problems created by the fact that you have to trust the operator.
In a P2P exchange such issues are not in place.
viaBTC is not very cheep. It is GDAX: 0% maker fee. I calculate bisq fee not to 0.2% but to 0.2% and up.
I think you write to me. BTW, I agree and it is way I like Bisq to grow fast = more profit, more users. I think and hope that GDAX primary income is from high taker volume and 0% maker fee is a key element because it generate high taker volume = more profit then a empty exchange will generate. And it is easy to copy for bisq
A shop with only 20 customers can not survive and hurt the anonymity.
Another concern some users have is bank fraud:
Fees are certainly not the reason people are choosing or not choosing Bisq. The cost of opening an account on a centralised exchange is very high, if one puts a cost on the time and effort it takes to be verified.
Hi All. I think like a mepistol. A 0.1% or 0.2% change will not deter traders from trading in Bisq.
In general, the possibility of receiving a refund on a bank transfer is not very high, at least in SEPA, unless fraud has occurred. The limitation of amounts per operation also prevents us from getting into serious legal problems.
However, the risk that all accounts of a centralized exchange are stolen and their data going to the hands of criminals is a certain risk, which has occurred many times, also with Localbitcoins. Even if they are not stolen, the data will pass to all kinds of government agencies.
Another risk, this daily, that affects the centralized exchanges, is the way they manipulate the price, either by means of boots, or by other means. Can anyone tell me who controls daily that they do not manipulate users’ access to push the price in the direction appropriate to their interests ?. Or that they are not applying a slight delay to the entry of operations to supervise them all for their own benefit ?.
If the code of those exchanges is not public and audited daily, it is an act of madness to invest there. Even what seem more respectable: https://www.coinbase.com/legal/user_agreement make it clear that they do not guarantee continuous access. An access that usually fails to the detriment of users, rarely the other way around.
In any case, the payment systems susceptible to fraud in Bisq should continue to be improved, as this yes may deter traders. Maybe Bisq could put a 1 month withholding on BTC withdrawal, after paying with any of these means, to avoid refunds. After all, BTC are usually acquired to speculate and people may not care to wait in such cases. It would also open the door to new forms of payment.
In the comments of the Reddit article, cash by mail is also mentioned. This has also been proposed here https://forum.bisq.io/t/request-cash-by-mail-in-usd-and-cad-markets/1866/29
fees ain’t the problem, right now bisq is charging around 0.2% which is normal on centralized exchanges (bitstamp and kraken hover around that value, only gdax offers 0% maker fees).
Security deposits may be a problem, but not what has been discussed here.
Security deposit can be edited by the maker. Might be UI issue that people don’t realize that but not easy to solve as it requires a bit of background info to understand the reason for it and I don’t want to overload the UI with popups/text…
Though we will reduce it to reflect increased BTC price or make it auto-adjusted to market price.
One of my recent transactions:
BTC Amount: 0.4
Security Deposit: 0.03
Mining Fee: 0.00936 (maker = 0.00234, taker = 0.00702)
This was when BTC at $4600. The security deposit I got back eventually, but mining fee was $45. Is this expected?
Mining fee is not trading fee. You mix up things.
Fro where you do took the numbers? They dont seem correct. Post the % distance to market price if available.
Of course it’s from my transaction history, where else can I take the numbers? See attached screenshot.
How do I see the % distance to market price from the historical transaction? It only shows what I paid and what I got in btc.
Ah ok.
That’s a unusual high fee of 390 Sat/byte. It might have been that in the peak of a recent spam attack the fee estimation service delivered such a high value but usually it is about 100 Sat/byte.
See: http://37.139.14.34:8080/getFees (atm its 90 sat/byte).
Fee estimation is difficult and the current services do not deliver optimal results. Also in Bisq it is difficult because we do not know in advance how many inputs will be used and to play safe we use 600 byte for the tx size where the optimum is 250 bytes. To get transactions stuck without getting confirmed has a very negative user experience, that is why we tried to be conservative and prefer to overpay.
But that is an area for improvements in future, though its not trivial…
https://www.viabtc.com/announcement/detail?id=11
I think this puts in its context the advantage of P2P and centralized exchanges. Put your money in the latter and tomorrow they will disappear
Quick thought about bisq fees (without reading the whole discussion, sorry):
Instead of having a fixed value, how about making them a fixed multiple of the miner’s fees?
That way, people could decide themselves: Pay high mining fee’s, get fast confirm and pay high fees to bisq to make sure the trade goes well, or don’t care, pay low mining+bisq fees and go higher risk+more margin.
I think in the end, it should always be up to the user with a proper incentivizing system to allow for the customer’s situations and taste.
Or an alternative idea: charge bisq fees for offer duration in the order book (anyone played world of warcraft here?).
E.g. placing an order with a 1 day validity costs 0.1%, 2 days 0.2% etc. After that time, the order gets cancelled automatically.
That would still leave the customer the coice of fees but give a direct proportional value in return (longer order exposure, equalling higher possibility of someone else accepting it).
Thoughts?
I read above that the bisq fees are 0.3% or 0.75% but I get much higher (2.67%). I am creating an offer to buy 0.0045 - 0.0075 BTC, 2% distance from market price, paying with euros.
I get:
security deposit: 0.01 BTC (133% of trade amount)
trading fee: 0.0002 BTC (2.67% of trade amount)
Mining fee: 0.000273 BTC (3.64% of trade amount)
I am probably missing something :S
The fee is 0.2% but there is a min. fee. If your trade amount is very low then the % can be higher due the min. fee. It is 2 USD in your case for buying BTC at 45-75 USD. 0.0002/0.0075=2.67%.
If you trade 0.1 BTC ore more then you have 0.2%. Maybe we need to lower the min. fee. With so fast rising BTC prices the average trade amounts get smaller as it was a while ago.
Thanks for the explanation. Maybe that’s why I see only big amounts at EUR/BTC offers.
