search

bisq-network / bisq

A decentralized bitcoin exchange network
https://bisq.network
GNU Affero General Public License v3.0
4.72k stars 1.27k forks source link

Add option to make trade 'reason' less obvious #2869

Closed rexi1e closed 3 years ago

rexi1e commented 5 years ago

Its pretty easy for a bank that has recognized the format of a Bisq trade "reason" to identify which its customers are trading bitcoin with Bisq.

Could you make an option for the user to pick a randomly-generated trade reason that's less obvious?

Maybe source a couple hundred reasons from Venmo's public data or something and then randomly pick form that, or something...I dunno

rexi1e commented 5 years ago

A presenters at HCPP mentioned Bisq as great KYC-free option to trade bitcoin, but their reason for not using was this.. Also many users having issues with Revolut, probably for same reason

You know this endpoint show latest public Venmo txs. Check message values for some ideas ;)

ghost commented 4 years ago

Here is the export of messages from the mentioned Venmo endpoint:

"Miss you",
"Groceries",
"Virtual coffee date!!!",
"To help w/ your bills this month",
"Thanks for everything you do",
"Rent's due, dude",
"Takeout > Going out",
"Thank you, friend",
"Pizza for din. And bfast too.",
"You got this",
"Dinner",
"Treat yo self",
"Grab a snack on me!",
ghost commented 4 years ago

And another one https://github.com/sa7mon/venmo-data it looks juicy, but I was not able to download the dataset.

Also there is the study where they have extracted the data for: https://www.rpubs.com/toehmler/559525

Another one is: https://github.com/erikgregorywebb/datasets/blob/master/venmo-public-payments-raw-2019-01-01.csv

But there is a lot of emojis, that are maybe hard to type (I would like to stick to plaintext). And also there are some quite akward messages like: "Best head of my life✊🏾🍆💦😛"

Here is polished list of transaction messages found in this dataset: https://gist.github.com/petrhejna/84a5718ae1426448b851b8091cfd87c8

I would even say, we need to generate our own dataset (do some copywriting). Not sure if data from Venmo can be used.

cd2357 commented 4 years ago

I don't think much can be gained from such a change.

Best case, it keeps privacy relatively unchanged but uses up dev resources to implement, test and spend time deciding on all kinds of new edge-cases:

Worst case, it actually decreases privacy and could introduce more issues:

As mentioned in https://github.com/bisq-network/bisq/pull/4249#issuecomment-626278366 I'd say the current approach is good enough.

ghost commented 4 years ago

That's fair point. Ill suggest to close the issue with this.

dmos62 commented 4 years ago

To continue from what @peterzen said, we could examine the mentioned "reason for payment" dataset to see what are the most prevalent and "neutral" reasons for payment (e.g. "Payment for #123123ABCD") and choose a few based on that. In other words, data-based search for how to get a needle-in-the-hay-stack effect. Making the "id" strings more varied is important either way: only using the uid string is suspicious, but having no variation in how we generate that uid makes all Bisq trades interlinked.

peterzen commented 4 years ago

It's important to keep in mind that there is a wide variation of traded amounts, and the provided payment description should be consistent with the value being transmitted - e.g. labeling a $100 tx as "Brunch #1234567" or a $25 tx as "Skiing contribution #123456" will stick out if manually being looked at. This makes it difficult to use any dataset, especially the aforementioned payment provider's whose users typically transfer very small amounts.

Another issue with the above kind of strings is that they're not natural and won't stand manual scrutiny: in person-to-person bank transfers people rarely use long IDs. To get around that, one option might be to let the user posting the offer manually edit the payment description, which would thus be available to the moderators. With this approach traders could use reasons that more naturally fit their own usage patterns.

sqrrm commented 4 years ago

@peterzen I think this is the most reasonable one, letting users set their own string. Uniqueness is required though to disambiguate different trades if they go to mediation, perhaps not a simple task unless you just add the normal trade id after the string.

peterzen commented 4 years ago

@sqrrm The payment description could be decoupled from the trade ID, though, no?

sqrrm commented 4 years ago

The string that's added to the payment on the bank transaction is what's used to verify that the transaction is related to the bisq trade in question when the case goes to mediation.

dmos62 commented 4 years ago

@peterzen it was pointed out that mediators need the trade ID in the payment description: https://github.com/bisq-network/bisq/pull/4249#issuecomment-626408225

I almost agree about recipient-specified payment reasons. Though, is it possible for a payment reason string to be good for the recipient and bad for the sender? Like specifying that recipient is buying something that's legal for him to buy, but illegal for sender to sell. Can a sender then cancel the transaction?

If that weren't a problem, I'd like to see the payment reason being made up of the trade id (which, again, should be more search resilient than it is now) and a custom prefix or suffix (e.g. "Prefix specified by recipient #tradeid").

peterzen commented 4 years ago

The string that's added to the payment on the bank transaction is what's used to verify that the transaction is related to the bisq trade in question when the case goes to mediation.

As the mediator sees both the trade ID and the payment reason they're able to verify the bank tx against the trade.

peterzen commented 4 years ago

@peterzen it was pointed out that mediators need the trade ID in the payment description: #4249 (comment)

I almost agree about recipient-specified payment reasons. Though, is it possible for a payment reason string to be good for the recipient and bad for the sender? Like specifying that recipient is buying something that's legal for him to buy, but illegal for sender to sell. Can a sender then cancel the transaction?

This is indeed a tough one - going down this manual editing route would add a boatload of unwelcome complexity to the process.

peterzen commented 4 years ago

@peterzen it was pointed out that mediators need the trade ID in the payment description: #4249 (comment) I almost agree about recipient-specified payment reasons. Though, is it possible for a payment reason string to be good for the recipient and bad for the sender? Like specifying that recipient is buying something that's legal for him to buy, but illegal for sender to sell. Can a sender then cancel the transaction?

Having spent more cycles on this, a potentially simpler method seems viable: if the user posting the trade is able to specify the payment reason, which the sender can verify and confirm when accepting the contract, there would not have to be an additional step in the trade flow; meaning no additional complexity.

dmos62 commented 4 years ago

@peterzen but then someone can mine the offer book for payment reasons (the idea is it's visible to everyone, right?).

crowphale commented 4 years ago

It's really hard to guess what good payment reasons could be for all users. We don't know all the users, what they typically spend money on, how much, etc. So from privacy perspective, it seems like letting both parties to agree on custom reason is the best option (with default option if they don't care, which can be the current alpha-numeric code).

Are there any other (non-privacy) issues with that? Like can one side use this to make cheating easier (arbitraging harder)?

Conza88 commented 3 years ago

A random generator for string of text related to price and Venmo etc ain't viable imo.

The solution most definitely relates to the users being able to amend the "reason". Both agreeing.

Or its simply saying reason MUST include the current "reason" string, but like others have said can mask it. As in order ID, or down payment one etc?

As suggested, could cause issues for people more so e.g. bank sees orders ID on a personal account?! etc.

It'd be normal ID assigned as is now, but if either have issues with Bank account or are wanting to elevate the reasoning, be protective they can engage other party in chat.

After agreement in chat can propose "change reason" and accepted, allows payment to proceed / amends terms. Logged.

If they don't agree, can proceed on old one and note not to trade with X next time. Or cancel trade. Don't think people will care that much ?

pazza83 commented 3 years ago

I think a simple solution would be:

At time of offer BTC seller (taker or maker) can specify an alternative Trade ID eg 'Party'.

The buyer can then choose to use either the usual Trade ID or the alternative Trade ID provided by the seller. Both would be acceptable.

I agree with @Conza88 that most people will not be bothered. I do not think there should or needs to be discussion about this in trader chat. Either an alternative is used or it is not.

Conza88 commented 3 years ago

Yeah good points. Accept all that. 👍

From: pazza notifications@github.com Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 3:42:48 PM To: bisq-network/bisq bisq@noreply.github.com Cc: Conza conza_@hotmail.com; Mention mention@noreply.github.com Subject: Re: [bisq-network/bisq] Add option to make trade 'reason' less obvious (#2869)

I think a simple solution would be:

At time of offer BTC seller (taker or maker) can specify an alternative Trade ID eg 'Party'.

The buyer can then choose to use either the usual Trade ID or the alternative Trade ID provided by the seller. Both would be acceptable.

I agree with @Conza88https://github.com/Conza88 that most people will not be bothered. I do not think there should or needs to be discussion about this in trader chat. Either an alternative is used or it is not.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/bisq-network/bisq/issues/2869#issuecomment-744183295, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AMMLWYSAZRVEX73FO2M47OTSUWQVRANCNFSM4HS7RAMQ.

aesema commented 3 years ago

Hello all. I also concur with the last idea. In my country having a trade ID mentioning a well known classified website would make sense. If the buyer doesn't like it, then (s)he can use the usual generated ID.

pazza83 commented 3 years ago

Hi @Conza88 and @aesema how about something like this?

Portfolio Sell BTC (alternative Trade ID)

Conza88 commented 3 years ago

Sure. And same with vice versa (seller)?

I'd like an "(i)" that when hovered over indicates why, it's purpose. Blending in with other bank transactions. Lots of random numbers can look suspect and can raise red flags to further investigate. With a maybe best practice example.

If as a BTC buyer, the seller put trade ID preferred as: e.g. "Order eBay 124689" then from my banks perspective no issue, maybe the sellers bank notices it's not a business account or something, but that's their own problem/fault.

I guess if maker of BTC sale put in e.g. "gun sale" and in my country that's illegal to own, that could cause issues - in which case, you'd just not do it...

But the overall for others would make them all blend in regardless and make the standard reason ID's seem more as one offs.

Yeah think it's good, choice.

From: pazza notifications@github.com Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 12:11:56 PM To: bisq-network/bisq bisq@noreply.github.com Cc: Conza conza_@hotmail.com; Mention mention@noreply.github.com Subject: Re: [bisq-network/bisq] Add option to make trade 'reason' less obvious (#2869)

Hi @Conza88https://github.com/Conza88 and @aesemahttps://github.com/aesema how about something like this?

[Portfolio Sell BTC (alternative Trade ID)]https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/66367547/102159126-ceb78d00-3e7a-11eb-9c96-0bac1249a4b4.png

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/bisq-network/bisq/issues/2869#issuecomment-745005627, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AMMLWYR3F52YSBSMGENHMC3SU3AWZANCNFSM4HS7RAMQ.

pazza83 commented 3 years ago

Hi @Conza88 thanks for the feedback.

Sure. And same with vice versa (seller)?

Yes, it would be the same. Think it should be maker/taker only. If it was maker and taker you would get 2 alterative options and it would get confusing.

I'd like an "(i)" that when hovered over indicates why, it's purpose.

Yes, I think it would be important to offer some more info to the reason.

I guess if maker of BTC sale put in e.g. "gun sale" and in my country that's illegal to own, that could cause issues - in which case, you'd just not do it...

Yes, counterparty could always ignore their peer's suggestion, this would always be acceptable.

Do you think it should be maker or taker that sets the alternative Trade ID? I am leaning towards taker as they can then learn which traders will include their suggestion and use this knowledge when taking future offers.

Conza88 commented 3 years ago

Yes to all. In terms of maker or taker, I'd be asking what do we want to incentivise?

Maker, yeah? They get ability to control narrative a bit more? 🤔

E.g. If they're a seller of BTC (maker) and want a particular description in bank that associates with a cover story. Don't want to risk their selling operation?

E.g. If they're a buyer of BTC (maker), I generally want to accommodate seller of BTC. So would probably engage with them and ask if they wanted a particular cover used?

I probably wouldn't specify one from the get go.. but then there's no way to amend and save during trade?

Hmm

From: pazza notifications@github.com Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 12:49:15 PM To: bisq-network/bisq bisq@noreply.github.com Cc: Conza conza_@hotmail.com; Mention mention@noreply.github.com Subject: Re: [bisq-network/bisq] Add option to make trade 'reason' less obvious (#2869)

Sure. And same with vice versa (seller)?

Hi @Conza88https://github.com/Conza88 thanks for the feedback.

Yes, it would be the same. Think it should be maker/taker only. If it was maker and taker you would get 2 alterative options and it would get confusing.

I'd like an "(i)" that when hovered over indicates why, it's purpose.

Yes, I think it would be important to offer some more info to the reason.

I guess if maker of BTC sale put in e.g. "gun sale" and in my country that's illegal to own, that could cause issues - in which case, you'd just not do it...

Yes, counterparty could always ignore their peer's suggestion, this would always be acceptable.

Do you think it should be maker or taker that sets the alternative Trade ID? I am leaning towards taker as they can then learn which traders will include their suggestion and use this knowledge when taking future offers.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/bisq-network/bisq/issues/2869#issuecomment-745016910, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AMMLWYQAYZP2EYXLTUYM6QDSU3FCXANCNFSM4HS7RAMQ.

chimp1984 commented 3 years ago

Have not followed all the discussion, so sorry if I missed something critical... I think payment with a invoice ID are common and those IDs are similar to those we use in Bisq. There are already some diff. styles for the short trade ID (mixed case, only numbers,...). Any added complexity always comes with UX costs and I think that is not justified here to make Bisq more complicate...

Conza88 commented 3 years ago

It's simply another optional text field... where maker can specify a possible alternate ID for taker to use. Not much complex about that? @chimp1984 - I understand you missed the last parts of convo, I think you're right if referring to list of options etc, and definitely adds unnecessary complexity.

pazza83 commented 3 years ago

Hi @chimp1984 I think this addition would very little complexity to UI.

The design I did looks pretty simple for users to understand.

Also the problem caused by Trade IDs on personal accounts are pretty significant. I think advising users to set up a separate bank account to use for Bisq is justified. However if all their payments in / out have random Trade IDs it does look a little strange and is hard to explain on request of bank.

Mixing it up with a few random trade ids; Holiday, house, deposit etc would likely make things look a little more like a normal account when checked by banks. This is all speculation but I think it would help Bisq users keep their accunts.

On a personal note my Revolut (used entirely for Bisq) was shut down. I do not think having only transaction with short trade ID (mixed case, only numbers,...) would have helped when thye did their review.

Conza88 commented 3 years ago

Hi @Conza88 and @aesema how about something like this?

Portfolio Sell BTC (alternative Trade ID)

Nice. As suggested, I'd like a "(i)" with more info that pops up, indicating why you would potentially use this.

_Blending in with other bank transactions. Lots of random numbers can look suspect and can raise red flags to further investigate. With a maybe best practice example.

If as a BTC buyer, the seller put trade ID preferred as: e.g. "Order eBay 124689"_

Conza88 commented 3 years ago

Had my transferwise account closed down as result.

pazza83 commented 3 years ago

Half a dozen people on Keybase have mentioned having their TransferWise account closed today.

I imagine a mass closure of accounts like this would be made easier by the use of all Bisq trades using a Trade ID (mixed case, only numbers,...).

All it takes if for someone at TW to google 'Transferwise Bisq' and them finding out the Trade prorocol. This would make identifying traders based on the trade IDs pretty straightforward.

Hopefully making the Trade IDs would make this a lot harder for a company to connect trades together.

I think services like TransferWise and Revolut that have both buyer and sender on their platform also makes this matching process easier.

I am also thinking the maker could request a Trade ID the default?

Also not sure if a blank ID would be useful. Maybe matching name / account details / amount etc is enough. Of all the trades I have done on Bisq, I think I would be able to match over 99% of them to my trade partner without the Trade ID. The remaining 1% could be confirmed in trader chat.

Conza88 commented 3 years ago

I think if TW is to remain up as an option (which has been fantastic), this needs to take priority. All else being equal, this would help.

I think if maker could default it as you suggest, requiring alternate ID then possibly you'd likely want to show that pre-trade acceptance? Or maybe get more cancels? Very marginal I imagine.

E.g. maker requires I put in desc. "Bicycle fund" and I'm getting insurance benefits for being disabled etc. Or some clash that makes taker uncomfortable?

I think helping communication in trader chat (notifications etc is an indirect aide), as well as possible guidance on "alternate ID" section (i) "if uncomfortable with using preferred suggested alternate ID, please discuss alternatives with trader in chat".

It's more about guiding to work it out together. I'm also at 99.9% didn't need a trade ID to verify etc.

From: pazza notifications@github.com Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2021 10:32:15 AM To: bisq-network/bisq bisq@noreply.github.com Cc: Conza conza_@hotmail.com; Mention mention@noreply.github.com Subject: Re: [bisq-network/bisq] Add option to make trade 'reason' less obvious (#2869)

Half a dozen people on Keybase have mentioned having their account closed today.

I imagine a mass closure of accounts like this would be made easier by the use of all Bisq trades using a Trade ID (mixed case, only numbers,...).

All it takes if for someone at TW to google 'Transferwise Bisq' and them finding out the Trade prorocol. This would make identifying traders based on the trade IDs pretty straightforward.

Hopefully making the Trade IDs would make this a lot harder for a company to connect trades together.

I am also thinking the maker could request a Trade ID the default?

Also not sure if a blank ID would be useful. Maybe matching name / account details / amount etc is enough. Of all the trades I have done on Bisq, I think I would be able to match over 99% of them to my trade partner without the Trade ID. The remaining 1% could be confirmed in trader chat.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/bisq-network/bisq/issues/2869#issuecomment-759124048, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AMMLWYQN5WS4YGSLJQDHX5DSZTSY7ANCNFSM4HS7RAMQ.

pazza83 commented 3 years ago

Maybe it could be linked to your suggestion here https://github.com/bisq-network/bisq/issues/5044

If mediators could see what has been agreed it would help.

chimp1984 commented 3 years ago

Any objections to remove the requirement to fill the "reason for payment" field? I think that would be the cleanest solution to just not use anything (or use "-" if the bank requires it).

viperperidot commented 3 years ago

I haven't read this whole thread but just wanted to put my 2 cents in. I am against having any false information in the reason for payment field. I think putting in false information into this field doesn't really add any additional privacy because I think the payment providers are more looking at your account activity than anything else. Having a bunch of payments with a lot of random reasons doesn't make you seem less suspicious imo, if anything I think it would make you look more suspicious (who buys a bunch of random items from individuals online all the time, not many people I would think...). I am also against it because should any questions or investigation into your account be asked then you have already incriminated yourself by lying. I personally would not want to provide any false information to companies that I have kyc'ed with. If it came down to them asking for more details and 'online purchase' wasn't good enough for them, then I would just ask for them to refund my money and cancel the transaction and not use them again. My TW account got deactivated and I did not appeal because there is no use fighting with a company who is anti-crypto imo. If I HAD to reveal the reason for payment to a provider then I would just tell them it was for bitcoin, im not a fan of lying and bitcoin is legal in most countries so it shouldn't be a big issue. Any country where bitcoin is illegal then the payment providers are probably not available in those locations as well. I think its important to remember that there is nothing wrong with buying and selling bitcoin, it is perfectly legal in most countries. These fintech companies can have pretty weak reasons for banning people which is unfortunate but I think we should be able to find more crypto friendly companies in the future (Strike etc.). Pazza found a great website called moonbanking.com that shows what are the most crypto friendly banks in your country. I think that is fantastic because we can take our business to banks and companies who are moving forward with crypto and not stuck in the past.

As far as this proposal goes I think leaving the trade ID as the default is still the best option but other options that would also work could be to leave it blank if the seller is ok with that or to agree on something different but nothing that is false information. So you could agree to have the message say something like "Thanks!" or "Thank you very much" or "Have a great day" or "Cheers". Something like that if you think the trade IDs are somehow getting flagged but not something that creates a lie that could lead to more trouble down the road should you get questioned on it.

pazza83 commented 3 years ago

Any objections to remove the requirement to fill the "reason for payment" field? I think that would be the cleanest solution to just not use anything (or use "-" if the bank requires it).

No objections.

I am in favour of the default being blank. Blank 'Trade IDs' improves user privacy and will also make it much harder for any keen compliance officers looking to audit transactions for Bisq trades.

Only trades were this could be an issue is when someone takes multiple offers from the same trader. As each trade is assigned to a different mediator it could get messy if a payment is missing. In this instance it could be sorted in trader chat or with communication between mediators. I think trades like this are rare.

Also, it would require traders to use trader chat in instances where account info is not always obvious. Eg Amazon eGift cards use email. I am sure this can be sorted in trader chat.

This change would require wiki updates and likely snags would occur with a number of payment methods but I think these should be minor. I am not aware of any payment methods that would be severely impacted by this change. If anyone can see any potential issues it would be good to know.

chimp1984 commented 3 years ago

Ok, I will make a PR for that.

chimp1984 commented 3 years ago

Done: https://github.com/bisq-network/bisq/pull/5080

Conza88 commented 3 years ago

Only trades were this could be an issue is when someone takes multiple offers from the same trader. As each trade is assigned to a different mediator it could get messy if a payment is missing. In this instance it could be sorted in trader chat or with communication between mediators. I think trades like this are rare.

The below improvements relating to trader chat would certainly help.

Also, it would require traders to use trader chat in instances where account info is not always obvious. Eg Amazon eGift cards use email. I am sure this can be sorted in trader chat.

Hence related to:

I commented at #5080 that there should be indication of why in the pop up message comms.

This would also likely be making life harder for high volume traders I suspect. But they're also most at risk of banned accounts anyway on various payment methods.

Pushing better, easier comm's between traders is vital.

I haven't read this whole thread but just wanted to put my 2 cents in. I am against having any false information in the reason for payment field. I think putting in false information into this field doesn't really add any additional privacy because I think the payment providers are more looking at your account activity than anything else. Having a bunch of payments with a lot of random reasons doesn't make you seem less suspicious imo, if anything I think it would make you look more suspicious (who buys a bunch of random items from individuals online all the time, not many people I would think...). I am also against it because should any questions or investigation into your account be asked then you have already incriminated yourself by lying.

Everyone canned the OP, but it was aiming in the right direction. The removing it #5080 is a step in direction direction as well.

I still think an optional alternative Trade ID will be a helpful addition. It's leave it blank by default, or the MAKER can indicate their preference for "e.g. Thanks for the collectibles", "Craiglist 2051 purchase", "Bicycle", "downpayment" etc. if I was a maker, I would get sick of having to chat about what it is the reason ID should be in trader chat. As e.g. a taker of BTC - I want to accommodate as much as possible the seller, so I become a preferred person they sell to etc.

Replicating real world transactions efficiently and conveniently is ideal. Facilitating that should be the goal by the protocol. It's shite it has to be done, but better than the alternatives...

mpolavieja commented 3 years ago

Sorry for chiming in so late. Do we have an idea on how often is reason for payment left blank as a general rule in fiat payments? If this happens very often, that would be great. But if not, that would be an easy way to idenfity Bisq transactions.

pazza83 commented 3 years ago

Not sure what the percentages are but would assume it is pretty high given that for most banks / payment providers it is an optional field.

Conza88 commented 3 years ago

We will soon have the removal of Trade ID requirement in description as the future default. Taker is not going to put in trade ID description when paying, leaving it blank.

In conjunction with this - I am re-highlighting this below request... which should make the process more efficient (MAKER can specify an "Optional Alternate Trade ID"... perhaps this needs its own thread/discussion?

I still think an optional alternative Trade ID will be a helpful addition. It's leave it blank by default, or the MAKER can indicate their preference for "e.g. Thanks for the collectibles", "Craiglist 2051 purchase", "Bicycle", "downpayment" etc. if I was a maker, I would get sick of having to chat about what it is the reason ID should be in trader chat. As e.g. a taker of BTC - I want to accommodate as much as possible the seller, so I become a preferred person they sell to etc.

Replicating real world transactions efficiently and conveniently is ideal. Facilitating that should be the goal by the protocol. It's shite it has to be done, but better than the alternatives...

This is just an additional field.

Helping facilitate communication/trader chat is also important:

Do we have an idea on how often is reason for payment left blank as a general rule in fiat payments? If this happens very often, that would be great. But if not, that would be an easy way to idenfity Bisq transactions.

Found this interesting: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=9047935 , taken from bank data in Spain 2017-2018, small sample. Examples of bank transactions descriptions. No comments on blanks (not their purpose). I suspect its a large % (e.g. at least 20-50%). In any case, this is why "Alternate Trade ID" allows MAKER/TAKER flexibility in coming up with common sense terms they are both comfortable with.

image

deusmax commented 3 years ago

The Bisq Trade Id worked well so far. Changing it is just a weak attempt to delay bank scrutiny. The real question is how to effectively react to increasing intolerance to crypto by the banking sector.

mpolavieja commented 3 years ago

I have made a very informal survey amongst my friends that work at banks (Spain), and the rough consensus is that around 40% of payments have no reason (blank reason, no text). The % is probably much higher if there is no invoice related to the payment (informal payments between friends, families, etc). So If this rough consensus is rigth, I think it is way better to leave the "reason of payment" blank.

mpolavieja commented 3 years ago

@viperperidot

I am also against it because should any questions or investigation into your account be asked then you have already incriminated yourself by lying.

IMO, this is the most compelling argument to leave the "reason for payment" blank.

Conza88 commented 3 years ago

I have made a very informal survey amongst my friends that work at banks (Spain), and the rough consensus is that around 40% of payments have no reason (blank reason, no text). The % is probably much higher if there is no invoice related to the payment (informal payments between friends, families, etc). So If this rough consensus is rigth, I think it is way better to leave the "reason of payment" blank.

Awesome work on finding out roughly! Glad my gut was fairly on the mark: "I suspect its a large % (e.g. at least 20-50%)."

Going from the above stats as well, if someone wanted to put a reason it'd be better as relating to "Shopping, Bank, & Leisure".

IMO, this is the most compelling argument to leave the "reason for payment" blank.

Right. Alternatively, I wouldn't be putting anything (without agreeing with seller if I was buying) that I wouldn't be able to confidently back up "e.g. bought a bicycle from seller." "I have a photo if you want? Bought second hand, no invoice. Ad gets taken down. I have a photo of the bike if you want?"

Also alternatively, "I bought some collectables. What of it?" technically true.

The Bisq Trade Id worked well so far. Changing it is just a weak attempt to delay bank scrutiny. The real question is how to effectively react to increasing intolerance to crypto by the banking sector.

I understand this sentiment. I think as you outlined in keybase, purchase patterns etc. can raise investigations, or someone gives the game away (one moron I traded with admitted to being asked by Revolut about a transaction and he sent screenshot of Bisq! he basically seemed he'd do the same if TW asked! Did my best to clear up/address etc.) and I do wonder if he was targeted or something and gave the game up.

In any case, adapting is currently required - at least this GIVES THE OPTION. Everyone can STILL use a trade ID (despite all the warnings about protocol being not to), just need to discuss with trader. Ultimately, we will see if lack of Trade ID helps at all.

henkvantijen commented 3 years ago

One thing I suspect triggers the transaction is a 'strange', non-rounded, amount, like 377,26 euro/dollar. You get that when you buy a rounded amount of btc. Therefore, my practice is that I always try to buy in rounded fiat amounts, like 375,00 euro. Maybe someone with bank relation can confirm my above suspicion?

ripcurlx commented 3 years ago

One thing I suspect triggers the transaction is a 'strange', non-rounded, amount, like 377,26 euro/dollar. You get that when you buy a rounded amount of btc. Therefore, my practice is that I always try to buy in rounded fiat amounts, like 375,00 euro. Maybe someone with bank relation can confirm my above suspicion?

That is why we introduced rounded amounts for fiat transactions. You'll always transfer rounded amounts on Bisq as they are less subject to trigger any automated flags.

mpolavieja commented 3 years ago

like 377,26 euro/dollar

I think this is not possible in Bisq as ripcurlx points out. If this happened to you, please report.

mpolavieja commented 3 years ago

Right. Alternatively, I wouldn't be putting anything (without agreeing with seller if I was buying) that I wouldn't be able to confidently back up "e.g. bought a bicycle from seller." "I have a photo if you want? Bought second hand, no invoice. Ad gets taken down. I have a photo of the bike if you want?"

Also alternatively, "I bought some collectables. What of it?" technically true.

Too convoluted. From my experience with "the system" (banks, public administration, taxman, courts, etc) the saying "Anything you say may be used against you" is, by far, the weapon they most frequently use to go after you. So if there is doubt and there is the possibility of not saying anything without attracting attention, the best option is always say nothing.

chimp1984 commented 3 years ago

I have the impression we are making a mountain out of a molehill in that issue. Banks are screwed in many ways, we reduced their ability to screw traders by removing that hint. Adding any lie as many have pointed out would add additional risks and should not be done, specially Bisq should not support that from the app perspective, that might have even legal implications. Leaving it empty seems the easiest improvement and traders have the trade chat and are flexible to override that with anything they like. Why not leave it for now and close that issue and focus on more important things? If there is no strong opposition, I will close that issue.