Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Lower tolerated small amount #5318

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 17, 2021
Merged

Conversation

sqrrm
Copy link
Member

@sqrrm sqrrm commented Mar 16, 2021

Split tolerated amount for placing offers with unsigned accounts
and tolerated amount for taking offers.

Implements suggestion in bisq-network/proposals#322

Split the small amount check between own side and peer side. Lower size that can be created but allows for taking already created buy offers with the old higher amount. The peer side check can later be lowered once the outstanding higher amount offers have been taken.

Split tolerated amount for placing offers with unsigned accounts
and tolerated amount for taking offers.
@ripcurlx ripcurlx added this to the v1.6.0 milestone Mar 17, 2021
Copy link
Contributor

@ripcurlx ripcurlx left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

utACK - Code looks fine. Will take a look in more detail during backwards comp. tests during release testing.

@ripcurlx ripcurlx merged commit 033ec32 into bisq-network:master Mar 17, 2021
@sqrrm
Copy link
Member Author

sqrrm commented Mar 17, 2021

@ripcurlx The backwards compatibility is the main issue and def good that you test it.

@pazza83
Copy link

pazza83 commented Mar 19, 2021

Hi @sqrrm

I think 0.0025 BTC is too low: bisq-network/proposals#322 (comment)

Is this commit putting in place the code to choose a selected amount or putting in place the 0.0025 BTC limit for new offers?

@sqrrm
Copy link
Member Author

sqrrm commented Mar 20, 2021

@pazza83 This changes the max buy amount for unsigned accounts to 0.0025 BTC.

@pazza83
Copy link

pazza83 commented Mar 20, 2021

@sqrrm is the signing requirement to get signed still 0.0025 BTC?

@RefundAgent
Copy link

This change done in this haphazard and non-democratic way will most likely be the final nail in the coffin of Bisq. Fortunately there are privacy-protecting alternatives these days.

The Bisq "team" has zero understanding of economics and probabilities. So long and thanks for all the fish.

@chimp1984
Copy link
Contributor

@sqrrm @ripcurlx
I agree that this PR seems to got merged too quickly before consensus have been found. There have been clear concerns from @pazza83 in the related proposal. I would suggest to revert that commit until consensus is found.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants