Bisq

21 May 2023 12:04

(that kind of iterative targets for certain things, not that exactly)

Bisq

21 May 2023 12:03

So you can still have an iterative process, where BMs burn a target in advance based on historical data, and that's used for refundagent(s) to payout trade+deposit+comp. And you can /converge/ on the right balance.

Bisq

21 May 2023 12:01

BMs cannot game the system, they either burn or they don't, however they decide bisq goes on working

Bisq

21 May 2023 12:00

bonds are for trusted roles

Bisq

21 May 2023 12:00

on fraud by BMs - they are bonded too, I thought (unless the docs are out of date).

Bisq

21 May 2023 11:59

but i havn't thought about it much obviously.

Bisq

21 May 2023 11:58

This would be the place to share your frustration, closed but you can still comment
https://github.com/bisq-network/proposals/issues/390

Bisq

21 May 2023 11:55

But there is still a transfer of value - evne if in advance - from those BM addresses to the refundagents, via the tokenomics of BSQ.

Bisq

21 May 2023 11:54

and the DPT fans out the payment to X BM addresses, weighted by some calculation of BSQ held / burned (that I don't understand).

Bisq

21 May 2023 11:53

that's what you have now, you have X BM addresses.

Bisq

21 May 2023 11:50

there is no place for trusted elements in bitcoin, legacy BM was the largest trusted role and point of failure in Bisq

Bisq

21 May 2023 11:49

BM was a trusted role, very heavily so

Bisq

21 May 2023 11:47

the refundagent requests compensation, for the payouts they make.

Bisq

21 May 2023 11:45

There is a mechanism to transfer value from BM to refundagent, through burning and compensation, isn't there?

Bisq

21 May 2023 11:43

a single person receiving all fees and delayed payouts from all trades on bisq, with the responsibility of burning them at regular intervals and report on this on a public platform. Would you have fun doing it?

Bisq

21 May 2023 12:03

isn't that already a part of some of the processes in Bisq?

Bisq

21 May 2023 12:01

and yet /channel/bisq_p2p/54928
I can argue on this matter only so much without spending all my knowledge 😜

Bisq

21 May 2023 12:01

I have some experience with distributed algorithms and "trust" (or a concept isomorphic essentially - correct operation regardless of failure) and you can never remove trust entirely.

Bisq

21 May 2023 12:00

legacy BM was bonded, BMs are not, they burn BSQ beforehand, no need for bonds

Bisq

21 May 2023 12:00

trusted, again, so not good.

Bisq

21 May 2023 11:59

I would probably do something via an N-of-M multisig, with bonded role holders.

Bisq

21 May 2023 11:56

The processes need to be tweaked so that flow (ultimately) balances out to compensating refundagents for paying out trade + deposit + compensation.

Bisq

21 May 2023 11:55

Right, so keep that.

Bisq

21 May 2023 11:54

BMs are trustless, they burn beforehand and receive a share afterwards, and new trade protocol makes it so that none of them can game the system and play at trading with himself to get more money that he put in

Bisq

21 May 2023 11:53

right, so have the X BMs.

Bisq

21 May 2023 11:49

IRL vetted by the powers that be

Bisq

21 May 2023 11:48

what is the obstacle to the X BM burning the right amount, so the refundagent can be compensated for paying out the trade amount + security deposit + compensation?

Bisq

21 May 2023 11:47

the BM burns, in order to continue to stay part of that role in the future.

Bisq

21 May 2023 11:44

I know I wouldn't touch that role with a 10ft pole

Bisq

21 May 2023 11:42

how much time is enough time? discussions about removing legacy BM was ongoing since many months already. Risk for Bisq, risk for BM, and BM had already said he wanted to be removed from the role.