ghost
commented
3 years ago Closed pazza83 closed 2 months ago
ghost
commented
3 years ago 
m52go
commented
3 years ago Also relevant: https://github.com/bisq-network/bisq/issues/1789
The trade protocol also requires the BTC buyer to state the Bisq Trade ID in the payment reference / description for the seller.
This isn't a hard requirement...there are payment methods that don't accommodate this right now.
chimp1984
commented
3 years ago The trade protocol also requires the BTC buyer to state the Bisq Trade ID in the payment reference / description for the seller. This means payment methods need a reference / description for the seller.
This together with stating the sending account information to the seller is used to protect against "triangular scam" attempts, where a 3rd person is tricked to send money to the BTC seller (e.g. for buying an iPhone on Ebay). Once the seller release the BTC the scammer gets the BTC and the victim will discover at some point that he never got sent the item he purchased. When he file a police report the Seller get accused as he was the receiver of the funds. Bisq never had such a case as far I am aware, probably because we protected from early times on against that by the need to provide the sending bank details and the reference text.
chimp1984
commented
3 years ago Amazon gift cards (or other polular cards) have been requested often.
pazza83
commented
3 years ago This together with stating the sending account information to the seller is used to protect against "triangular scam" attempts
Thanks for letting me know. Does this rule out using a third party to send funds such as a money transfer services that would directly deposit in the users bank account from the account details of the money transfer service rather than the individual user? For example XE, OFX, WorldRemit etc
I understand both MoneyGram and Western Union are accepted money transfer services but these both seem to work from my understanding that the end user has to collect cash from a dedicated location and being able to confirm the sender's full name and other information relate to the transaction. Direct deposits are not possible with either of these payment methods as fair as I am aware. This adds security that the user is trading with their Bisq counterparty.
chimp1984
commented
3 years ago Does this rule out using a third party to send funds such as a money transfer services that would directly deposit in the users bank account from the account details of the money transfer service rather than the individual user? For example XE, OFX, WorldRemit etc
I just wanted to make the context more clear why certain requirements are in place. Those have been built around the main payment methods like SEPA and Zelle. For others that risk of triangular scam can be much lower just be the fact that those payment methods are not commonly uses, so for scammers it will be hard to find a victim (which are often elderly not tech-savvy persons). So would not see such things too pragmatic. Goal is to keep scammers out as far as possible, specially "serial-scammers" who try to repeat a certain scheme.
pazza83
commented
3 years ago @chimp1984 thanks for letting me know. As money transfer services are less at risk of triangular scam I will consider them for addition. Chargeback risk is low and payments can be given a reference do allow trade counterparty to be identified (this would be needed in this case as the seller would not be able to match payment account details of the buyer).
chimp1984
commented
3 years ago Ah yes thats another important role of the reference field. If you have 2 trades with exact same amount the seller does not know who paid....
pazza83
commented
3 years ago In considering payment methods I would like to know what Bisq stakeholders opinions are in terms of considering payment options with any of the following:
I am sure everyone would agree that Bisq should reduce the risk of scammers as much as possible. But I am unsure as to how much Bisq should aim to limit the choice of payment methods to those which can be verified and are, therefore, less at risk of scammers.
Proposed cash by mail options and amazon vouchers etc would seem like useful additions, and both have traders that would like to utilize them. However both have additional problems with verification. I am not sure how much Bisq should balance individuals' wish to utilize particular payment methods vs ensuring trades are secure for as many users as possible?
Users that take precautions and build up relationships over time with their counter parties will mitigate the risk of problems. However new users may not have the experience or knowledge to take adequate precautions.
For a Payment Method to be added to Bisq is it essential that mediators can verify the payment took place?
FWIW my own thoughts are that, whatever payment methods are chosen, Bisq should maintain as a safe place for people to trade. I chose Bisq over other P2P options as I felt Bisq had a much stronger reputation for being a safe place to trade than it's competitors. I acknowledge that this option would lead to slower increases in trading volumes, but I think maintaining a safe place will ultimately prove the successful strategy in the long term.
chimp1984
commented
3 years ago Higher risks of traders being able to scam other users
I would be very careful with that. At the end it falls back on Bisq's reputation if users get scammed as well it attracts LE if scammers see in Bisq an easy platform to cash out.
Verification of payment more difficult/unable to be achieved through mediation Usually thats a hard requirement, exception is F2F trades but that has a diff. context as its a real life situations with all its pros and cons reagarding security. Consider that Bisq does not have a centralized reputation system and account system like other centralized platform which offer such methods.
amazon vouchers.... have additional problems with verification
Can you explain what are the problems? I thought that its pretty safe and not that hard to verify, but never used them...
I think we have to take care to not bootstrap a payment method which might not see scammers initially because its low liquidity and once its successfully adopted scammers come and ruin all what we have built up. You cannot trust a random anonynmous stranger who has nothing to lose if the scam gets detected.
For a Payment Method to be added to Bisq is it essential that mediators can verify the payment took place?
Yes, as said exception is F2F but that has diff. context.
FWIW my own thoughts are that, whatever payment methods are chosen, Bisq should maintain as a safe place for people to trade. I chose Bisq over other P2P options as I felt Bisq had a much stronger reputation for being a safe place to trade than it's competitors. I acknowledge that this option would lead to slower increases in trading volumes, but I think maintaining a safe place will ultimately prove the successful strategy in the long term.
I agree. We worked hard on that reputation and we should not risk easily to lose it.
pazza83
commented
3 years ago Hi @chimp1984 thanks for all your comments much appreciated.
With regards higher risks I agree it is best to keep them as low as possible to maintain Bisq's reputation and to provide a safe platform to trade on.
With regards Amazon Gift Cards I have commented on the thread https://github.com/bisq-network/bisq/issues/1866 I am not sure the method (In-Amazon Payment) that is easy to verify has much of a use case, and the method that had more of a use case (Send gift card numbers) cannot be verified.
With regards cash F2F it would be useful to get your thoughts on Cash by Mail https://github.com/bisq-network/bisq/issues/1101
This is an example of a payment method that has a strong use case but comes with more risks.
chimp1984
commented
3 years ago I left some comments....
chimp1984
commented
3 years ago @pazza83 Have you looked into International Wire (SWIFT)? I think it has no chargeback risk but high costs (about 80 USD), but if no/low chargeback risk we could allow higher trade limits so the costs are in a better ration to the transferred amount.
chimp1984
commented
3 years ago Is Google wallet or Apple Pay an option?
MwithM
commented
3 years ago I guess most gift cards need offers with fixed fiat prices. You have to send a gift card for 50USD, not 45.53USD or 51.53USD depending on price fluctuation.
I'd like to see Colombian payment methods that have been on the waiting queue for a little bit ot time, like Nequi.
pazza83
commented
3 years ago @pazza83 Have you looked into International Wire (SWIFT)? I think it has no chargeback risk but high costs (about 80 USD), but if no/low chargeback risk we could allow higher trade limits so the costs are in a better ration to the transferred amount.
Hi @chimp1984, Yes see https://github.com/bisq-network/bisq/issues/1789 There is a small risk of chargeback due to the 'Stop and recall' system introduced fairly recently. However I think it is small enough for it to be added with account signing in place.
The proposal is pretty complete it would be good to add but the fields needed are a little more complex than existing payment methods see: https://github.com/bisq-network/bisq/issues/1789#issuecomment-591253226.
pazza83
commented
3 years ago Thanks @MwithM I have commented on https://github.com/bisq-network/growth/issues/193
pazza83
commented
3 years ago Is Apple Pay an option?
From: https://applecash.greendot.com/termsconditions/
If you charge back or reverse a P2P Transfer funded with a Supported Payment Card (either in whole or in part) with the issuer of such Supported Payment Card, we may reduce the balance on your Apple Cash Card by the amount charged back or reversed, even if such action would result in a negative balance.
As Apple Pay fund payments from a linked credit or debit card, a scammer could attempt to file a chargeback a credit card transaction.
Apple Pay transactions themselves are non-fundable
Except as otherwise expressly provided herein or as otherwise required by applicable law, transactions authorized in connection with the Funds Transfer Service are non-refundable. We are not responsible for any loss of funds if you authorize and instruct us to send funds to the wrong User, account, or other designated recipient.
However, where Apple Pay suspect fraud they say the user must cooperate in their Recovery Efforts
You agree to cooperate reasonably with us and our agents and service providers in our attempts to recover funds from, and to assist in the prosecution of, any unauthorized use of the Direct Payments Service.
pazza83
commented
3 years ago I have just put together a list of requirements to consider when adding new payment methods.
Currently their is not documentation around what does / does not make a good payment method so this is my attempt to share my current thoughts as to what should be considered when adding new payment methods.
The idea would be when evaluating a payment method against the requirements if it can meet at least all essential requirements it can be added to Bisq.
If a payment method had any definite no's it would be unable to be added to Bisq.
It is a work in progress at the moment and it would be great to have peoples comments.
If you think I have missed anything, or included something incorrectly please let me know.
| Essential (+1) | Desirable (+2) | Definite No’s (-2) |
|---|---|---|
| Very low risk of chargeback | No risk of chargeback | < very low risk of chargeback |
| Way to verify the sender in the received payment | Way to verify the sender in the received payment and ability to enter a reference | No way to verify the sender in the received payment |
| Trade time less than one week | Instant payment | Trade time more than one week |
| Singular Fiat currency | Multi-currency | Not a payment method for fiat currency |
| Significant user base | Large user base | No significant user base |
| High usability | High usability and great user experience | < high amount usability |
| No KYC required for sending and receiving payments | No KYC required for sending and receiving payments, allows users to trade with upmost privacy. Minimal identifying information as possible (no names, email, phone etc required) | Some KYC required (proof of address, ID, selfie) for sending and receiving payments |
| Low risk of scam attempts | Trades are as safe and secure for as many users as possible | < low risk of scam attempts |
| Traders can provide evidence of payment / receipt | Traders can provide evidence of payment / receipt and Verification of payment can be made using PageSigner or similar | Traders will be unable to provide evidence of payment / receipt |
| Minimum limit at least equal to at least account limits protocols | No minimum limits | Minimum limit not able to achieve account limits protocols |
| Maximum limits equal to at least 0.01 BTC | Large payment limits up to 2 BTC | Maximum limit is less than 0.01 BTC |
| Likely to increase liquidity | Likely to open markets for different countries and currencies | Likely to decrease liquidity |
| Low risk of mediation | Very low risk of mediation | < low risk of mediation |
| Low risk for traders from government agencies | No risk for traders from government agencies | < low risk for traders from government agencies |
| Fees should not be a barrier to trading | No fees for transactions | Fees will be a barrier to trading |
| Only minor changes needed to trade protocol | No changes needed to trade protocol | > Minor changes needed to trade protocol |
chimp1984
commented
3 years ago An important feature is that the seller is able to verify the sender in the received payment. This should be the main payment method data (name, IBAN, email,...) additionall to the trade ID. This is needed to avoid the tri-angular scam attempt as well for account signing.
Regarding max limits: This is not only for security of the traders but also for risk limitation of mediators/arbitrators in case they make a mistake. It happened repeatedly and they have to pay from their own pocket for such mistakes, which can be very expensive with a 2 BTC trade. So even in 100% secure methods like most altcoins this limit cannot be raised (it might be already too high with current BTC price).
pazza83
commented
3 years ago After looking at what other P2P providers are offering, payment methods Bisq is not offering that are popular with other exchanges are the following.
I know CBM and SWIFT are being considered and TransferWise is due to be implemented. It would be great to know which of the others have been considered, discounted, retired etc.
Here is a link to the data showing what if on offer by Bisq and other P2P exchanges: https://onlyo.co/32N8zFv
chimp1984
commented
3 years ago Venmo is a no-go as we made already bad experience with it.
OkPay we had initially but I dont remember what was the reason why we removed it but was something serious (no scam, but company changed to something scammy/weird)
Halcash we have but no trades. I guess that would need more PR. Its a quite cool payment method but only ferw countries.
I forgot the name but there is in Poland some interesting candidate as well.
m52go
commented
3 years ago I looked into Ria and I believe it is quite similar to Western Union with maybe some lower fees based on where you're sending money. Never pursued it since WU is rarely used.
These payment methods may have more potential if offers made with such multinational payment methods could be displayed (i.e., offer-maker has option) in offer books of multiple currency markets...ditto for SWIFT, TransferWise, etc.
chimp1984
commented
3 years ago A problem with Western Union how we have implemented is that you can use it only between same countries which is not the real use case for it. So I think that should be fixed...
pazza83
commented
3 years ago I looked into Ria and I believe it is quite similar to Western Union with maybe some lower fees based on where you're sending money. Never pursued it since WU is rarely used.
I think one of the differences between the two, at least in my country, is that with Ria you can have money directly deposited in your bank. With Western Union you have to go to a collection point with ID and collect cash.
The picking up cash part stopped me from using WU, I did investigate if direct deposits were an option but they did not appear to be with a personal account.
pazza83
commented
3 years ago A problem with Western Union how we have implemented is that you can use it only between same countries which is not the real use case for it. So I think that should be fixed...
Thanks, I will look into this.
pazza83
commented
3 years ago pazza83
commented
3 years ago For reference: Add iDEAL as payment method
LeadManPL
commented
3 years ago I believe adding too much payment options will decrease liquidity, because of the diversity of options, it will be harder for users to match their payment options. There should be only major options available. And whats more important, there should be possibility for makers to accept multi payments for each offer.
pazza83
commented
3 years ago Hi @LeadManPL thanks for the feedback.
I believe adding too much payment options will decrease liquidity, There should be only major options available.
I disagree:
On the Bisq channel in Telegram now there is a trader wanting to access Bisq in Iran. They will be restricted from doing so due to limited payment methods.
What abut traders in Colombia that are keen to trade on Bisq using new EMI providers recently set up in their country. They too are restricted from trading.
because of the diversity of options, it will be harder for users to match their payment options.
What would make it harder to match options?
Why would they not just 'filter by payment type?'
And whats more important, there should be possibility for makers to accept multi payments for each offer.
I agree this is important.
MwithM
commented
3 years ago There's a balance on too many and not ennough payment methods. Probably falling on the "too many" side is better. Sepa and sepa instant is a perfect example of how can having too many payment options could decrease liquidity. But we don't know beforehand what payment methods will be more accepted by Bisq users. As long as they're considerably safe, Bisq should try to implement as many of them as possible.
pazza83
commented
3 years ago Sepa and sepa instant is a perfect example of how can having too many payment options
Can you elaborate on this?
chimp1984
commented
3 years ago I think its a UI issue. I will add some feature to the settings where one can define the payment mehtods he wants to see in the dropdown menues. It is similar to currencies where we have that already, so you can limit the number of currencies in the dropdown.
There might be though sime which have not been used since ages like PerfectMoney. But I think the effort to find out which have not been used and to be sure that the reason is not lack of visibility/PR might not be worth it.
MwithM
commented
3 years ago @pazza83 A normal sepa payment account can't take a instant sepa. This might be fine, as instant sepa users maybe don't like to wait for normal sepa transfers, but it segregates a possible single market in two. Now a trader with a instant sepa account needs to choose between using the normal or the instant sepa Bisq payment method, whichs makes overall availability of offers compared to a unique sepa payment option smaller. We could also think that a single maket (EUR) is segregated with the inclusion of Revolut. If all EUR traders used only SEPA, any offer could be taken by anyone. Of course this has disadvantages, like censorship resistance or excluding those who prefer to use Revolut instead of their regular bank.
chimp1984
commented
3 years ago Note that one with a SEPA instant account can take any SEPA offer as well. I think there is a demand for users who want fast/instant transfer and SEPA with up to 6 days is not great for that. Not sure if there is a perfect solutions... With APIs users will become more flexible to enable/disable offers on certain criteria. To add support for multi payment account offer would help but it adds quite a lot of complexity and work not sure if such a feature justifies that as there is much other important work to be done.
pazza83
commented
3 years ago @MwithM
I do not see it as splitting a market.
A trader who has access to both SEPA Instant and SEPA will price their offers accordingly.
For example if a trader values speed of trade they could price SEPA Instant offers below SEPA offers.
For a buyer with both a SEPA account and SEPA Instant account they now have two options. More options > More accessibility > More completed trades.
Theoretically, if all EUR users only used SEPA this would have a negative impact on trading. It also does not give much redundancy for changes in banking regulation / systems.
SEPA Instant is becoming more common each year. Hopefully, it will not be long before SEPA Instant is fully integrated.
6 days is a long time in Bitcoin!!!
pazza83
commented
3 years ago Note that one with a SEPA instant account can take any SEPA offer as well.
Yes, a SEPA Instant account can also be signed by both a SEPA account and a SEPA Instant account.
I would recommend people with EUR accounts that support SEPA Instant to create 2 payment accounts with it. SEPA and SEPA Instant.
Also check how your bank supports SEPA Instant. They can support SEPA Instant; sending only, receiving only, or both.
pazza83
commented
3 years ago For reference: Add support for M-Pesa
pazza83
commented
3 years ago For reference: Add CapCode payment option in Bisq
pazza83
commented
3 years ago For reference: Add Satispay
pazza83
commented
3 years ago For reference: New payment method from Brazil - PIX
RefundAgent
commented
3 years ago Venmo does not allow chargebacks anymore: https://help.venmo.com/hc/en-us/articles/235171088-Cancel-Payment
It is also a larger than Zelle, although the gap is getting smaller. Maybe it can be reinstated.
m52go
commented
3 years ago It seems issues from last time involved Venmo taking pre-emptive action against its own users, not necessarily users charging back other users (although it's good if the latter has been improved).
pazza83
commented
3 years ago Strike by Zap is getting a lot of mentions on Keybase. I will investigate this also
pazza83
commented
3 years ago For reference:
Add Bizum as a new payment method (popular in Spain) Add Venmo as a payment method Add Strike App as a new payment method Add ACH Transfer - USA as payment method Add Domestic Wire Transfer - USA as payment method Add TransferWise-USD as a payment method Add Verse as a payment method (popular European payment app) Add payment method: ATH Móvil (Puerto Rico)
btcpuertorico
commented
3 years ago ATH Movil in Puerto Rico https://github.com/bisq-network/bisq/issues/1868
pazza83
commented
3 years ago Here is my work process for all the payment methods that have been proposed for being added to Bisq
Currently there are 46 payment methods being considered for addition. Relevant numbers are:
For reference this is a list of all payment methods that are in available on Bisq
There are currently 29 payment methods available to Bisq users.
pazza83
commented
3 years ago Hi following discussion with Bisq users the following payment methods are being considered for inclusion in Bisq.
Not all payment methods will be added as we will be looking to add the ones that will be most widely used. Therefore if you see a payment method you would like to use please comment on this thread saying what would would like to see, or even better comment on the GitHub issue.
The more feedback received the better we can develop Bisq to be useful to people like you,
pazza83
commented
3 years ago Hi following a review of all the payment methods proposed for Bisq. I have reviewed them all and scored the 16 critrea based on the table above using the following criteria.
Essential: +1 Desirable: +2 Definite No’s: -2
The maximum score therefore is 32/32. I have expressed scores as a percentage of this to give an indication as to how well each payment method meets the Bisq criteria.
The above payment methods have multiple issues that prevent them being suitable for inclusion in Bisq.
The above payment methods would be suitable if it were not for the low limits of around 0.01 BTC max transaction limit or under. I think this will likely cause issues in the months ahead and, therefore, these payment methods can be re-visited when the on chain miner fee problems have been reduced.
The above payment methods are all suitable to be added to Bisq.
bitpaint
commented
2 years ago In my opinion, we, the Swiss people, need Twint.
Switzerland Payment Methods: Twint is taking over in Switzerland, it would be nice to have it as a payment method for Swiss users. 3.5 million active TWINT users (Swiss population 8.5 million)
Twint, as far as i understand it: 20/32 - 62.5%
Description
I have recently taken on the role of researching new payment methods that can be added to Bisq and am looking to get ideas from Bisq users about what payment method they would like added.
If you would like to buy or sell using a particular payment method that is not available on Bisq please let me know.
What payment methods can be added?
To secure the trade protocol for all users it is vital that Bisq only uses payment methods with no or a very low risk of chargeback. Payments methods that make chargebacks easy to initiate for users eg PayPal are not suitable for Bisq.
Low chargeback risks are deemed as payment methods which are difficult for buyers to reverse. For example they would need to report their account as compromised / hacked for a chargeback to even be considered. For low chargeback payment methods Bisq uses a 'account signing' to mitigate risks to traders.
The trade protocol also requires the BTC buyer to state the Bisq Trade ID in the payment reference / description for the seller. This means payment methods need a reference / description for the seller.
Payment methods that provide quick transactions are also preferable as they add to user experience, and also reduce the potential for either party pulling out of the trade. Currently Bisq has payment methods with transaction times between 1 hour and 6 days.
Bisq is strongly No KYC. Any payment methods that require traders to request additional information from their trade counterparty (address info, passport, Selfies!! etc would not be suitable on Bisq)
The above are just based on my opinion of using Bisq so please feel free to let me know if you disagree with any of the above.
What type of payment methods are preferred?
Ideally new payment methods added to Bisq would:
Increase liquidity in existing markets Open up new markets Attract new traders of that particular payment method to Bisq
It would also be good to know if anyone has ideas for any multi-currency payment methods that would allow users to trade with more than one currency such as Revolut, Uphold etc
Please feel free to suggest any ideas you think would be popular on Bisq