►
From YouTube: Bisq Developer Session 24.09.2019 - What's Next?
Description
See written agenda and minutes here:
https://github.com/bisq-network/events/issues/33
A
Today's
dev
core
would
be
something
like
presentation,
I,
guess,
less
of
a
discussion.
The
goal
is
to
get
people
up
to
speed
what
is
being
worked
on
and
what
is
the
future
of
risk
in
terms
of
what
features
can
be
expected,
which
which
features
will
fade
away?
Of
course,
any
any
ideas
and
comments
our
welcome.
A
Well,
let's
start
with.
There
has
been
discussion
of
a
new
trade
protocol
for
a
long
time
now,
and
it
seems
that,
finally,
something
is
getting
done,
and
then
there
is
this
topic
of
Biscay
version,
two
out
there
where
yet
another
new
trade
protocol
is
in
the
making,
or
at
least
is
thought
about
where
bisque
itself
doesn't
have
a
Bitcoin
wallet
integrated
into
the
basic
software
anymore
and
the
trades
are
done
off
chain.
So
it
should
have
a
few.
B
I
try
to
make
it
as
short
as
possible
and
different
and
feel
free
to
just
interrupt
me
so
that
it
doesn't
completely
monologue.
So
there
are,
as
Laura
mentioned,
there
are
two
trick
protocol
ideas
out,
one
already
quite
old,
also
the
other
of
Czech
Republic
old
idea
was
created
a
year
ago,
but
basically
about
it,
was
completely
on
hold
and
just
recently
we
were
diving
deep
into
it
again
and
they
are
basically
very
different
or,
let's
call
them
on
the
new
trade
protocol
and
lack
of
a
better
name
and
the
other
one
is
the
object.
B
Entry
protocol,
so
I
start
Wister.
Talking
about
the
new
trade
protocol
tests
actually
planned
now
for
the
next
release
that
will
be
1.2
version
1.2.
It
will
be
a
semi,
hard
work
or
some
of
the
hard
housework,
but
users
need
to
update
to
be
able
to
trade
her
as
all
not
updated.
Clients
cannot
write
with
new
users,
but
beside
that
there
is
not
too
much
interruption
with
the
network
and
it
changes
basically
quite
yeah
quite
strongly
the
current
trade
protocol.
The
current
rate
protocol
is
based
on
this
two
or
three
more
district,
where
the
arbitrate.
B
A
B
No,
when
there's
a
normal
trade,
where
no
problem
is,
then
the
traders
are
executing
that
rate
without
involvement
of
the
arbitrator
and
the
arbitrator
is
not
aware
of
the
trade,
but
he
has
provided
the
key
for
the
mood
to
see
and
that's
already
a
problem.
Only
when
there
is
a
dispute,
then
they
starting
to
chat
with
the
arbitrate
that
arbitrate
to
get
all
the
great
information
the
contract
and
can
see
all
the
names
and
everything.
B
A
B
B
And
yeah
and
we
have
yeah,
we
have
basically
three
problems
here.
One
is
a
legal
risk
that
the
arbitrate
there's,
no
clear
definition,
doesn't
exist
really
in
real
life,
the
same
model
with
two
three
multi-sig,
but
it
could
be
interpreted
as
financial
intermediary.
According
to
some
lawyers,
it's
in
some
countries
open
Korea
RIA,
but
there
is
a
certain
amount
of
risk
there.
B
Then.
The
second
is
that
there's
a
security
risk
when
the
arbitrator
get
hacked
or
when
the
arbitrator
would
be
Russia
could
be
to
gives
the
funds
and
the
service,
and
because
of
this
we
cannot
scale
it
up.
We
cannot
make
it
that
anonymous
people
who
can
become
arbitrator.
It's
a
trusted
role
and
that's
also
wide
upon
the
troll
I
mean
we
are.
B
We
have
not
enforced
upon
so
far
because
we
basically
want
to
get
rid
of
it
anyway,
but
even
the
bomb
would
not
be
enough,
because
the
amount,
what
could
be
tear
at
the
Keystone
will
always
be
higher.
We
cannot
enforce
the
arbitrator,
need
to
pay
half
a
million
North
esq,
inbound
or
whatever.
Then
nobody
will
do
it.
Another
everything
is
that
it's
very
expensive.
B
The
arbitrator
yeah
because
he
carries
the
legal
risk
because
he
carries
the
the
risk
that
when
he's
epicly
irony
get
hacked
and
his
Keystone
that
it
will
be
a
security
risk
and
another
risk
which
is
not
very
people,
are
not
very
familiar
but
which
is
very
important
this
and
which
is
the
reason
why
we
have
also
trade
limit
for
all
queens.
Even
there
is
no
security.
B
Risk
is
because,
when
the
arbitrator
makes
a
mistake
at
the
payout,
he
thinks
that
the
buyer
should
get
the
money
and
he
clicks
by
mystic
on
the
seller
basically
and
gives
the
salient
seller
the
money.
Then
he
has
to
pay
the
damage
from
his
own
pocket.
The
buyer
will
complain
them
and
yeah
when
the
cell
is
not
honest
and
return
the
money
to
arbitrate,
they're
stupid.
Isn't
that
recently
happened?
It
happened
over
time
over
the
last
three
years.
It
happened,
maybe
four
or
five
times
people
make
mistake
and
yeah.
B
When
you
make
this
mistake,
the
money
under
there
is
no
reversion
of
Chris
and
usually
nearly
always,
the
traders
were
honest
and
we're
paying
back,
but
recently
one
arbitrator
get
hit
by
by
that
and
it
was
a
two-bit
print
rate
with
maneras
we
lost
to
Bitcoin,
which
is
a
lot
of
money
$20,000
and
he
yeah
he
basically
lost
nearly
all
the
money.
Would
he
run
so
far?
So
that's
the
reason
why
arbitrations
were
expensive
for
the
Dow,
usually
at
the
moment,
I
think
we're
spending
roughly
one
Bitcoin
per
month
on
one
arbitrator
so
to
Bitcoin.
B
B
Straight
is
that
trading
in
Bitcoin,
yet
before
that
now
it
was
where
you
get
a
full
trading
fee,
I
think
now
it's
between
60
and
80%
of
the
trading
fees
paid
in
BS
q.
So
the
arbitrator's
are
not
earning
so
much
anymore,
but
it
seems
that's
still
enough,
but
we
want
to
get
to
switch
this
also
to
this
donation
address
that
the
Bitcoin
fee
will
be
paid
also
directly
to
this
basic
donation
address
and
then
the
hold
of
the
donation
address.
B
B
It's
just
a
manual
process
that
will
come
also,
probably
with
an
explosion
and
I
would
just
want
you
to
give
a
little
bit,
because
it's
not
very
clear
people
after
arbitration
system
because
they
use
it
and
most
people
don't
understand
and
I'm,
not
aware
of
the
big
problems.
What
what
they
carry
for
the
for
the
project
and
the
big
costs?
B
Like
yeah,
it's
basically
our
weakest
link
in
a
moment
and
we
yeah
we
need
to
get
rid
of
it.
It's
a
long
term
since
a
long
term,
a
goal,
but
we
never
had
time
to
basically
work
on
the
solutions,
and
this
new
trade
protocol
is
basically
the
solution
to
get
rid
of
it
and
I
will
yeah
will
describe
how
it
works.
It's
up
as
it's
in
some
areas,
it's
quite
similar,
but
there
are
some
additional
areas
so
yeah,
when
you
start
the
trade
you
are
creating.
You
make
an
entry
with
the
other
user.
B
Where
exchange
their
transaction
date,
then
your
and
account
date
that
we're
verifying
and
everything
and
they're
now
at
the
current
rate.
But
all
you
create
the
two
or
three
more
to
save
the
deposit
transaction
and
that
get
published
and
which
that
basically,
the
trade
has
started,
and
then
the
next
step
will
be
that
the
buyer
need
to
pay
the
feel
to
it.
B
I'll
go
in,
and
so
on,
and
I
am
only
talking
about
this
first
phase,
where
yeah,
what
I
just
said
where
the
good
trade
get
started,
because
the
rest
doesn't
change
all
the
remaining
stuff.
Where
the
field,
yet
the
field
payment
gets
started,
and
then
the
seller
need
to
confirm
that
you
receive
the
fields
or
the
output,
and
then
the
payout
gets
graded.
Also,
all
that
part
is
exactly
the
same.
B
The
only
big
changes
are
in
this
initial
part
where,
where
the
multisig
is
created
and
with
the
new
trade
vertical
something
additional,
so
instead
of
a
to
extreme
opposite
where
the
arbitrator
is
a
key
holder,
we
are
changing
our
to
a
two
of
two
more
districts.
So
only
the
two
traders
are
the
key
holders,
there's
no
arbitrate
included
and
what
we
have
deployed
already
now
with
the
version
and
the
mediation
will
be
activated
in
three
days.
When
users
have
problems
first,
they
can
communicate
over
the
trader
chat
to
resolve
it
by
themself.
B
The
tester
advantage
were
to
use
is
that
they
don't
reveal
any
privacy
to
a
third
party.
When
they
cannot
reveal
it,
then
they
can
ask
for
mediation
asset
that
will
be
activated
in
two
days.
Mediation
is
basically
the
same
like
the
arbitration
without
the
key.
So
then
he's
investigating
the
case.
Have
the
dis
chat
system
and
everything
and
try
to
find
a
solution,
and
but
he
cannot
enforce
resolution
by
making
the
payout.
B
He
only
can
make
a
suggestion
for
a
payout,
but
the
mediator
sink
sister
just
pay
out
and
he
will
send
this
message
to
post
trade.
Us
and
both
traders
get
basically
the
information
yet
immediate
that
such
as
the
payout
with
this
amount
go
to
the
buyer.
This
amount
goes
to
the
seller.
Do
you
accept,
or
do
you
reject
when
both
accept
then
they're
both
signing
the
pair
transaction
and
the
trade
is
closed?
Like
the
normal
execution?
Everything
is
fine.
B
When
one
of
the
traders
are
both
rechecked,
then
we
are
going
to
the
next
level
and
there
has
been
a
few
different
ideas,
but
maybe
I
skip
all
this
and
not
confuse
you.
The
current,
which
is
very
fresh
and
was
just
developed
yesterday.
Actually
idea
is
that
you
are.
You
have
two
options
then
also
when
you
are
rejecting
this
recommended
payout
from
the
mediator,
you
can
wear
with
sorry.
I
have
I
have
to
explain
another
thing.
B
So
let's
say
yeah
one
is
selling
to
Bitcoin
and
some
security
deposits.
All
in
all
this
to
point
to
Bitcoin
in
the
multisig,
then
both
traders
are
signing
a
time
lock
pair
transaction
where
it
is
2.2
mil
Bitcoin
from
the
more
basic
is
sent
directly
to
the
destination
address
and
the
time
lock
is
has
to
be
defined.
But
roughly
1
months
and
the
I
yeah
I
don't
explain
the
details,
a
few
details,
what
we
have
to
take
care
that
it's
safe,
but
that
other
problem
and
it
solved.
B
So
both
traders
have
basically
this
payer
transaction
which
they
could
publish
after
this
one
months
before
1
months,
it
will
be
rejected
by
the
network
stuffing
ballot
and
after
one
month
when
the
trade
has
not
been
closed
in
a
normal
way,
either
by
completing
the
trade
or
by
media
mediated
payout.
Then
o--'s
have
basically
the
power
to
burn
the
full
amount.
Dr.
Mahoney,
so
the
security
deposit
and
the
trade
amount
is
gone
for
both,
but
then,
of
course,
when
you
get
cheated
by
the
other
trader,
then
yeah
you
want.
B
You
want
to
get
back
the
money,
and
there
are
two
options.
Then
what
you
can
do
one
is
that
you
are
asking
for
a
reimbursement
of
your
lost
money.
Let's
say
it
was
a
two-bit
con
trade
with
money
arrow
and
with
the
security
deposit.
Maybe
I've
lost
2.1
Bitcoin,
so
you
converted
with
the
current,
is
cure
rate
to
psq,
and
you
make
a
reimbursement
request
to
the
Dow.
You
are
presenting
the
evidence
from
the
media
that
immediately
said
that
you
should
get
the
money,
so
you
have
done
everything
right.
B
The
dow
stakeholders
have
no
no
reason
why
they
should
doubt
it
when
there
is
nothing
weird
that
they're
suddenly
hundred
cases
from
the
same
mediator,
then
of
course
they
have
to
check
more
closely
what
this
media
is
doing,
but
when
there
is
no
reason
for
any
doubt,
the
stake
holders
will
likely
accept
it.
I
mean
they
they
don't
want
to
punish
or
they
don't
want
to
create
damage
for
the
users
and
loose
users.
B
It
shouldn't
happen
like
ten
reimbursement
requests
every
months
it
can
be
maybe
one
a
month
or
even
less
and
when
it
when
it
would
be
too
much,
we
need
to
figure
out
why
it
happens
too
often
and
that's
the
experience
from
arbitration
over
three
years.
There
are
basically
million
no
scam
attempt
because
you
have
not
the
chance
to
to
succeed
beside
their
sole
bank
accounts
camps,
we'd
never
had
scams
actually
and
and
usually
yeah.
It's
it's
stupid
problems.
What
always
can
be
resolved
in
consensus.
B
So
we
expect
that
with
mediation
we
can
resolve
99.9%
and
when
not-
and
there
are
some
issues
opened
like
yeah-
it
could
be
that
trader
in
you,
newbie
doesn't
know
that
he
has
to
be
online
and
it's
just
not
available,
and
you
cannot
reach
him,
but
such
problems
we
can
solve
by
increasing
the
security
deposit.
For
instance,
I
mean
this
newbie
will
probably
when
he
has
to
locked
up
a
lot
of
money,
then
he
will
take
care
and
read
the
pop-ups
and
not
forget
about
this.
So
I
think
that
probably
is
all
solvable.
B
It
will
be
a
little
bit
an
experiment
to
see
how
it
works
in
real
in
real
life,
but
we
know
already
from
arbitration
cases
that
disputes
a
real
dispute.
We
were
fighting
and
say
now:
I've
sent
the
money,
I,
don't
know,
I've
not
received
it
and
they
don't
agree
or
so
nearly
never
happened,
and
so
we
expect
that
this
reimbursement
case
will
be
super.
Rare
and
yeah
I
said
that
one
option
is
that
the
user,
who
has
lost
the
money
that
he
makes
the
reimbursement
request?
B
B
The
trader
P
will
be
rejected
by
the
Dow,
so
why
you
should
even
try
it,
so
it's
unlikely
that
both
will
do
it
and
if
they
do
it,
the
other
voters
have
to
sync
and
just
think
logically
and
recheck
one
and
accept
the
event
that's
closed,
and
then
there
is
a
second
solution,
because
it's
a
little
bit
of
a
friction
for
a
user
first,
you
need
to
understand
the
whole
concept
and
then
they
have
to
wait
and
then
yeah.
They
have
to
convert
it
from
B
askew
back
to
Bitcoin
and
so
on.
B
So
it
has
some
hassle
and
some
friction
frame
and
to
avoid
is
we
we
are
offering
a
role
assume.
There
will
be
basically
something
like
an
arbitrator
again,
how
we
call
it
it's
not
defined
yet,
but
let's
call
it
still
arbitrate
them
and
he
will
do
a
second
round
dispute
resolution.
So
when
yeah,
when
the
user
decides
okay,
he
want
to
go
to
arbitration,
then
the
arbitrator
will
check
the
case
again.
B
So
it's
like
the
Supreme
Court
in
a
way
a
you
get
the
second
chance
forehead
for
a
judgment,
and
when
it
comes
to
a
solution,
then
the
arbitrator
will
pay
from
his
pocket,
the
one
who
should
get
the
money,
the
funds,
if
it's
hundred
percent
or
just
ninety
percent,
that's
up
to
discussion
with
the
fee,
but
just
ignore
it
at
the
moment.
The
fee,
maybe
we
start
with
hundred
percent,
so
when
in
our
example,
the
one
trader
has
lost
a
two
point,
one
Bitcoin
the
arbitrator
will
pay
him.
The
two
point,
one
Bitcoin.
B
So
basically
the
trade
is,
is
satisfied.
Yes
got
the
money
it
only
is
different.
To
now
is
that
he
needed
to
wait
for
one
month
for
the
delayed
payout
transaction
because
before
the
money
is
burnt-
or
we
cannot
do
this,
because
otherwise
you
could
cheat
the
system
by
making
a
self
trade
and
basically
claim
that
you
got
cheated
and
then
get
refund
it
from
the
arbitrator.
And
then,
the
day
later,
you
make
the
payout
to
your
other
soobin
trader.
B
To
avoid
this,
we
need
to
make
sure
that
the
trade
amount
is
basically
lost
and
and
the
arbitrator
when
he
pays
from
his
pocket.
He
want
to
get
refunded
as
well,
of
course,
and
he's
doing
it.
The
same
way
he's
basically
taking
over
the
claim
for
a
reimbursement
from
the
user
and
doing
the
reimbursement
for
himself
get
paid
either
get
reimbursed
by
the
biskits
ow
needed
to
write,
provide
the
evidence
about
the
case.
B
I
mean
the
arbitrator
is
losing
time.
He
takes
some
risk
with
volatility
and
all
this
and
there's
some
open
risk
that
it
becomes
rejected.
He
need
to
have
quite
a
little
bit
of
money
when
there
are
many
cases
you
need
to
basically
pre-fund
all
this
Bitcoin
and
then
get
it
back
two
or
three
months
later.
B
But
what
attracted
service
should
pay
this
directly
and
it's
a
little
bit
like
disclaims
for
Mont
God's
to
people
who
have
lost
them
on
Cox.
They
we
think
since
many
years
for
getting
back
the
money,
and
there
are
some
companies
who
are
offering
a
pain
we're
buying
this
claim.
So
you
can
sell
it.
The
claim
to
this
companies
they're
only
offering
us
in
10%
of
your
Bitcoin,
so
they
pay
very
little
and
yeah.
B
When
you
don't
want
to
deal
with
this
and
wait
another
five
years
to
get
back
the
money
you
can
sell
it
and
then
they're
getting
your
train.
And
here
it's
really
the
arbitrator
is
taking
this
role
and
midterm
I
think
there
should
be
some
costs
like
something
like
10%
in
included.
When
the
trader
don't
want
to
spend
this
cost,
he
can
do
it
himself
and
I
said
we
have
always
to
keep
in
mind
that
this
situation
should
be
considered
exceptional.
It
shouldn't
happen
at
every
yeah,
550
trader
or
whatever.
B
So
when
it's
more
like
two
cases,
three
months
for
reimbursement,
we
basically
have
to
work
to
bring
it
down
to
the
maximum
bar
on
case
per
your
sidekicks
and
I.
Think
that's
realistic,
because
it's
from
our
experience
that
it's
doable
and
yeah
that's
the
goal.
Basically,
with
this
we
are
removing
completely
there's
no
short
key
of
the
arbitrator
at
all
anymore.
There's
no
legal
risk
anymore.
The
arbitrator
is
a
service
provider
for
basically
a
pre-funding,
you
you
are
claimed
and
then
dealing
to
get
yeah
dealing
himself
with
the
Dow
to
get
refunded
for
this.
A
B
And
that's
a
good
thing:
it's
available
just
in
time.
You
don't
need
to
decide
it
in
advance
when
you
create
the
offer
or
whatever.
Just
at
the
moment
when
you
are
waiting,
maybe
you
have
a
case
where
you
don't
to
agree,
because
you
think
the
mediator
has
paid
too
much.
Rudy
I'll
appear
and
you
should
get
more
and
you
have
to
wait
for
one
months
that
creates
already
pressure.
Maybe
then,
when
you
wait
two
weeks,
it's
saying
I
want
to
get
the
money
out,
even
if
I
lose
1%
or
2%.
B
What
I
expected
to
get
back
so
users
get
a
little
bit
of
pressure
to
come
to
a
consensus
which
is
good
for
our
network.
We
don't
want
that.
They're,
superb,
a
strong
head
and
think
yeah.
Now
what
because
it
just
made
a
small
breach
of
the
contract
and
the
mediator
decided
to
give
the
security
deposit
to
the
other,
and
then
they
are
not
happy
with
this
and
then
after
this
long
months
they
can
basically
click
the
button
over.
They
have
two
options
or
start
reimbursement
by
its
button
click.
B
They
are
publishing
their
delayed
payer
transaction
and
they
are
starting
to
make
reimbursement
requests
in
the
towel
or
so
that
this
basic
a
manual
process,
because
they
have
to
wait
for
being
in
the
compensation
in
the
proposed
to
face
and
so
on,
but
they
get
all
the
instructions
what
to
do
and
the
re
compare
the
precondition
is
that
they
have
published
or
delayed
payout
transaction.
Without
this
they
cannot
do
anything
and
the
second
option.
B
The
second
button
is
to
yeah
request
arbitration,
forget
the
refund
from
arbitration,
and
then
the
arbitrator
will
check
again
and
when
he
thinks
that
you
should
get
the
refund
or
the
arbitrary
they
can
decide.
However,
I
give
you
to
the
payoff
it's
like
now
can
be,
50/50
can
be
hundred
percent
to
one
or
it
can
be
everybody
get
back
security
deposit
it.
B
The
only
difference
is
that
the
money
is
not
coming
from
the
deposit
transaction,
but
it
comes
from
the
arbitrator's
wallet,
but
for
the
trade
it
doesn't
matter,
the
trader
gets
the
money
back
and
if
it
comes
from
the
depositor
from
the
arbitrator,
bollard
has
basically
no
impact
for
the
trader.
He
is
happy
that
he
got
them
back
the
money
in
a
reasonable
time.
I
mean
it
depends
how
long
the
arbitrator
need
for
the
dispute
resolution.
B
That
also
can
take
whatever
a
few
days
or
a
week,
and
then
he
makes
the
payout
and
the
case
is
closed.
And
then
the
arbitrator
has
to
do
the
steps
with
the
real
and
after
one
or
two
months
we
get
back
the
money
and
he
turned
to
sell
the
be
asked
you
to
get
cut
and
so
on,
but
in
the
donation
a
try.
Something
is
money
for
that.
Now
it's
a
zero-sum
game,
assuming
zero
volatility,
of
course,
with
volatility
there
can
be
up
or
down,
but
assuming
zero
volatility.
B
The
yeah,
the
2.2
Bitcoin.
In
our
example,
trade
goes
to
the
donation
address.
The
owner
of
the
donation.
Address
have
to
burn
this
or
buy
up
his
queue
on
the
market.
With
this
a
huge
basically
bsq
pyre
and
giving
the
bit
come
basically
to
one
of
the
contributors
and
in
exchange
for
psq
and
then
burning
the
BS
cube.
B
So
basically
the
similar
like
a
fee
payment
and
then
the
reimbursement
is
creating
two
new
bsq
in
the
value
of
2.2,
Bitcoin
and
yeah
for
the
Tau
it's
destroyed,
let's
say
22,000
bsq
by
burning
it
and
then
later
reimbursing
22,000
bsq,
so
yeah,
it's
a
zero
change
from
the
economic
perspective.
Let's
just
okay.
Five
billion
volatility
risk
about
this
like
this.
So.
A
B
A
B
The
only
change
happened
when
you,
when
one
of
them
are
rejecting
the
mediation,
then
it's
also
it's
not
much
different
from
user
experience,
because
now
they
go
to
arbitration
and
he
also
I
mean
they
go
I'm,
not
going
directly
to
arbitration
that
we
get
they
pop
up
over
whatever.
Where
they
get
explained
here,
you
have
two
options:
either:
do
a
reimbursement
for
yourself
or
request
another
arbitration
and
get
refunded
from
the
arbitrator.
Okay,.
A
Before
we
reach
this
one
month,
you
said
in
the
example
time-out
limit.
If
we
decide
well
after
let's
say
three
days,
something
has
gone
wrong,
then
you
go
to
to
mediation
and,
first
of
all,
you
can
use
the
trader
jet
to
communicate
with
with
the
trade
partner
directly
and
try
to
resolve
it
without
any
third
party
involved.
Is
this
correct,
yeah.
B
Also
because
trader
chat
and
mediation
is
exactly
like
now
and
yeah:
first,
you
try
it
yourself,
then
you
try
it
with
a
mediator
the
media
to
make
a
suggestion
about
the
payout
and
then
it's
up
to
the
traders
to
accept
it
and
when
they
would
reject
it,
then
to
one
month's
is
not
over.
They
will
get
an
information
yeah.
They
cannot.
They
have
to
wait
for
this
one
months
or
maybe
shorter.
We
have
to
decide
on
this.
How
long
this
delay
we
beat
one.
A
B
I
think
that's
also
current
I'm,
an
economy
that
you
have
I
think
when
you
get
their
payout
from
the
mediate
that
you
still
can
continue
to
trade
normally.
So
when
you
have
received
the
field-
and
you
click
a
few-
accept
basically
the
yeah,
you
confirm
that
you
have
register
field
and
the
trade
has
completed
like
normal.
Without
even
if
the
mediator
said
yeah,
you
are
guilty,
you
should
lose
your
security
deposit,
but
maybe
in
the
trader
chat
you
are
agreeing
with
the
other.
You
explained
there.
Sir
I
was
yeah,
was
not
a
malicious
thing.
B
B
Maybe
we
make
the
time
of
depending
on
the
payment
methods,
because
we
see,
if
I
it's
already
eight
days
to
trade,
no
six
days
the
trade
period,
so
we
need
along
a
timeout
and
so
and
Alcuin
it's
just
one
day.
So
maybe
we
at
different
time
but
I
mean
it
I
think
it's
a
feature
to
have
a
little
bit
along
a
time
because
it
cause
pressure.
When
it's
very
short,
then
people
get
quickly
to
the
arbitration
case
and
the
arbitrator
has.
We
want
to
avoid
that.
B
That's
case
is
actually
what
what
leads
to
two
real
problems
that
Monstress
not
reacting
I
see
we
have
increased
security
about
it
over
the
last
year
or
so,
and
that
has
reduced
those
cases.
As
far
as
I
heard,
from
arbitrators
and
I
think
it
still
happens
with
very
small
amount.
So
when
people
are
losing
20
year
old,
they
don't
care,
but
fewer
will
be
to
increase
the
security
deposit
for
small
trades.
So
when.
B
B
B
It's
I
think
it's
just
about
this,
that
when,
when
you
do
something
where
100
euro
is
on
stake,
you're
reading
the
stuff-
because
that's
quite
a
little
bit
of
money
when
it's
just
5,
euro,
you're
lazy
and
just
click,
some
buttons
and
intolerant
and
the
damage
is
on
the
other
user
side
and
we're
on
disc
side
when
we
have
reimbursements
for
tiny
amounts.
It's
it's
friction
with
what
we
don't
want
to
so
to
fix
this
yeah.
We
can
play
around
with
this
parameter
of
the
security
deposit
or
okay.
So.
A
B
A
B
B
A
B
I
mean
we
have
to
figure
out
this,
how
much
to
arbitrator
will
cost
the
arbitrator
is
basically
a
contributor.
He
will
per
case
and
I
mean
that
will
be
a
base
cost,
because
you
need
to
be
online
and
be
available
and
then
case,
like
the
mediators.
They
get
paid
per
case,
something,
and
then
we
need
to
figure
out
over
time.
If
this
is
enough
for
a
bit
greater
that
they're
doing
their
job
in
a
high
quality
and
trust,
worship
will
be
probably
a
bonded
role
at
some
point.
Yeah
yeah.
A
But
I
believe,
if
you,
you
said,
if
you,
if
you
say
well,
you
have
these
two
options.
First
option
is
you?
Do
it
yourself?
The
second
option?
Is
you
use
the
arbitrator
service
you
have
to
you
set
your
you.
Let's
say
the
arbitrator
for
the
trading
peers.
The
arbitrator
costs
a
little
bit
so
that
because
if
it's
the
same
amount,
I
just
go
straight
to
the
arbitrator
and
say
well
use
the
arbitration
service
because
and
I
don't
have
to
bother
myself
yeah.
B
So
I
mean
I
think
the
initial
goal
is
that
we
don't
shock
users
with
a
difficult
change
where
people
need
time
to
understand
it
and
people
are
very
used
to
the
arbitration
system
at
the
loftus
and
they
don't
want
the
change.
That's
my
experience
from
feedback
and
we
need
to
make
it
as
easy
as
possible
to
the
new
system
that
for
them
it's
the
only
different
will
be
this
delay.
Basically,
because
then
now
they
need
to
wait
a
little
bit,
but
also
it's
arbitration.
I
mean
there
is
no.
B
When
arbitrator
needs
one
months
to
resolve
the
issue,
you
need
four
months,
there's
no
guarantee!
So
usually
it
resolved
quickly
in
a
few
days,
but
they
can
be.
When
does
complicate
case
can
take
weeks,
and
so
now
it's
basically
the
mandatory
waiting
time.
And
after
this
you
get
when
you
choose
to
use
the
arbitrator,
you
get
the
payoff
directly
from
the
arbitrator.
B
So
for
the
user
experience
it's
not
much,
it
change
and
doing
the
reimbursement
himself
is
the
no
change,
because
you
need
to
understand
that
ow
and
I
need
to
get
the
information
and
have
confidence
in
psq
and
all
this
and
to
avoid
this
friction
here.
That's
why
we
have
the
second
option,
but
long
term
or
midterm.
We
want
to
apply
realistic
costs,
I
think
in
the
beginning,
it's
probably
okay.
B
Basically,
when
we
are
socializing,
this
costs
to
the
table,
because
we
don't
want
to
lose
users
that
they
are
too
afraid
and
don't
use
bisk
anymore,
because
they
don't
trust
this
new
concept
and
and
when
we
see
out
after
one
or
two
months
that
there
are
nearly
no
cases
at
all
we're
such
arbitration.
And
then
there
are
just
when
they're,
just
two
users
who
are
using
it
for
a
month.
They
are
basically
causing
us.
The
cost
for
the
output
is
arbitrator.
B
Maybe
the
arbitrator
cost
us
also
5000
views
Keuka
months
then
to
trade
us,
for
maybe
the
tiniest
trades
cost
us
5,000
psq,
that's
not
economically
rational.
So
at
some
point
we
will
apply
to
peace
but
a
cost
to
the
users
and
when
they
use
us,
we
are
how
we
do
it
that's
up
to
discussion,
but
it
should
be
yeah.
B
A
B
A
B
Mean
arbitrators
I
we
are
still
looking
for
maybe
a
better
name.
The
good
thing
is
when
we
still
call
it
arbitrator,
then
it's
more
easy
for
the
user
to
adjust
in
a
new
system
and
for
the
user
from
the
user
perspective,
not
much
difference,
but
conceptually
it's
something
different.
It's
a
mediator
plus
account
like
a
claim
dealer.
Clean
broker
he's
buying
a
single
technical
turn
would
be
underwrite.
That
other
think.
B
That's
not
well
known
for
they're
doing
something
similar
in
real
life
for
public
companies,
so
he's
basically
buying
your
claim
and
giving
you
the
money
for
your
for
taking
over
your
claim
for
reimbursement
as
you
as
a
trader
cannot
do
the
reimbursement
again
when
the
arbitrator
is
doing
the
reimbursement
for
your
trade.
You
need
to
provide
the
evidence
about
the
trade
and
it
will
be
clear
to
reimbursements
one
from
the
arbitrator
one
from
the
trader
and
the
trader
does
get
rejected
a
person
so.
A
B
I
think
it's
still
important
to
have
it
as
a
bonded
role
in
future,
because
it's
somehow
I
trust
it
role
when
he's
not
I
mean
he's
also
doing
the
mediation.
So
we
need
to
be
sure
that
he
is
doing
the
job
well
and
not
jealously
and
and
also
the
privacy
issue.
We
collect
basically
data
from
trades
from
users,
so
we
don't
want
that.
This
person
is
selling
this
data
or
whatever.
So
that's
all
reasons
to
have
a
bond
for
this
role.
B
I
mean
we'll
take
a
little
bit
because
adding
anything
to
is
difficult
and
basically
you
should
consider
there's
no
change
possible
in
the
Dow,
but
of
course
some
changes
are
possible
that
it
requires
a
lot
of
testing
and
salt,
and
but
when
we
come
to
the
point
that
we
want
to
it
scale
it
bigger,
then
we
need
to
implement
upon
the
growth
in
the
beginning.
Probably
the
existing
arbitrator's
will
play
this
role.
They
know
all
there.
It's
I
mean
a
problem
with
scaling
up.
Arbitration
is
onboarding,
it's
not
a
very
easy
task.
B
You
need
a
lot
of
information
and
at
the
moment
we
don't
have
the
resources
to
basically
do
this
onboarding
special
anonymous
people,
where
you
cannot
do
it
normal
Chet
and
explain
it,
and
it
has
to
be
all
very
well
documented
and
yeah
throughout
the
work
queue
to
get
there
and
we
have
our
priorities
now,
but
basically
there
is
no
conceptual
reason
to
not
be
able
to
scale
it
up.
That's
important
thing:
it's
just
from
our
produce
I
think
it's
not
plan
to
do
this
in
the
next
three
months,
but
maybe
half
a
year
or
whatever.
A
B
So
all
the
risk
with
the
arbitrator
are
vanished.
The
risk
for
security
that
somebody's
stealing
the
key
and
the
legal
risk
that
somebody
is.
We
are
attacking
him
and
integrates
him
as
a
financial
intermediary
who
needs
a
license
or
whatever,
and
the
other
is
that
the
arbitrator
makes
a
wrong
path.
This
risk
is
still
a
little
bit
there.
So
when,
when
the
arbitrator
makes
the
refund
and
pace
the
wrong
person,
then
the
week's
team
will
still
complain
and
you
need
to
make
a
second
payout
I
think
this
risk
will
remain,
but
I
think
I.
B
B
And
we
happen
in
the
version
class,
we
have
a
version
for
the
trade
protocol
and
that's
worship
on
currently,
and
we
change
this
to
version
two
and
then,
when
you
have
updated,
you
have
basically
version
two
and
you
cannot
trade
with
user
who
has
version
bottom,
so
you
cannot
take
off
first,
they
cannot
take
care
of
it.
The
only
problem
is
when
you
have
an
open
trade
or
a
dispute,
then
there
would
be
issues
because
we
are
not
supporting
both
trade
protocols
in
parallel.
That
would
be
engineering
wise
much
more
complicate.
B
So
we
have
to
tell
the
user
and
communicate
to
the
user
that
they
only
can
update
when
they
have
are.
They
have
to
to
complete
their
existing
trades
and
maybe
get
and
better
deactivate
their
existing
office.
So
they
are
not
getting
new
trades
and
our
dispute.
So
everything
has
to
be
closed.
When
all
the
trades
are
closed,
then
they
can
update
and
then
start
again
the
offers
get
converted
to
the
new
format
or
the
changes
automatically,
and
you
can
stop
again.
Trade,
ok,.
A
B
A
As
it
is
as
it
is
now
is
when
you,
when
you
have
your
your
biscuit
location
running
and
there
is
a
software
update
available,
there
is
a
pop
up.
I
think
that
there
is
a
new
version
or
on
startup
something
like
this.
There
is
a
pop-up
array,
it
says
well,
a
new
version
of
bisque
is
about
to
be
there
for
is
available.
Do
you
want
to
download
now
ignore
it
or
remind
me
later,
and
there
would
be
some
instructions
that
if
you
won't
get.
B
A
B
B
Doesn't
matter
it's
I
mean
the
users
could
do
this
themselves
as
well
about
the
arbitrator
knows
how
to
do
it
a
little
bit
complicated.
It's
documented
in
the
docs
webpage.
So
you
basically
you
need
to
provide
the
private
key
for
this
certain
trade.
It's
only
for
this
four-foot
a
payout,
so
there's
no
security
risk
with
any
other
money,
and
you
can
do
it
which
the
other
trade
also,
but
then
they
have
to
know
how
to
do
it
and
technical
challenge
a
little
bit.
But
it's
seen
the
UI.
B
You
have
a
forum
where
you
have
to
put
in
all
the
data
like
the
private
key,
and
you
know
all
the
instructions
or
all
the
data
which
are
laid
out
in
the
instructions,
what
you
need,
and
then
post
traders
or
the
arbitrate
that's
doing
a
manual
catalysis.
So
if
the
money
is
not
at
risk,
it's
just
inconvenient
and
it's
a
extra
hassle
for
everybody
in
both,
but
so
people
should
not
do
it.
But
when
it
happens,
it's
not
a
disaster.
It's
no
money!
A
B
B
Already
deployed
the
media
tempered
by
the
chat
it's
deployed,
the
mediator
will
be
activated
in
two
days.
It
was
just
for
for
the
update
process,
because
when
only
one
user
has
to
mediate
that
wouldn't
work,
we
needed
to
wait
a
little
bit,
but
that
activated
in
two
days,
and
then
you
have
this
second
round,
basically
that
first
it
goes
to
the
mediation
and
then
it
goes
as
the
second.
B
When
one
is
not
agreeing
to
the
result
of
the
mediator,
but
then
only
then
they
arbitration
starts,
which
helps
us
already
to
reduce
the
cases
for
a
real
arbitration,
probably
by
ninety
decrease
this
cases
by
90
or
more
percent.
But
we
still
have
the
problem,
that's
the
two
or
three
modes:
they
can't
arbitrate.
That
still
has
the
key
and
everything.
So
it
doesn't
really
solve
the
big
problem,
but
it
improves
the
right
in
a
situation
like
it
was
before.
A
Okay,
so
there
is,
there
is
a
few
features,
namely
the
mediation
step
is
already
deployed,
let's
say,
and
you
will
go
active
in
two
days
time.
So
if
then,
you
click
the
arbitration
button.
If
something
goes
wrong
and
you
click
the
arbitration
button,
you're
not
directly
going
to
arbitration
but
first
a
mediation.
Is
this
correct
idea?
Yeah.
C
C
B
A
A
Okay,
if
there
are
no
more
questions,
then
yeah
well,
let's
proceed
to
the
risk
aversion
to
and
why
we
need
this
biscuit
version
and
why
there
is
why
we
would
be
off
chain
thing.
A
nice
thing
to
have
and
what
trade
protocol
without
having
bisque
Bitcoin
in
the
bisque
application
itself
would
be
a
great
idea.
Yeah.
B
Dopinder
issues
about
older
the
benefits,
yeah
I-
try
to
make
it
short,
because
we
already
one
hour
the
basic
idea
of
the
version.
Let's
call
it
off
chain
crate
protocol
is
that
we
are
separating
the
exchange
or
the
trade
itself
from
the
security
model
at
the
moment
with
the
multisig,
it's
both
tied
together.
That's
why
we
have
the
on
chain
transaction
because
we
are
using
the
Bitcoin
matific
feature.
It's
the
main
security
feature
suppose
have
locked
up
something
and
they
have
to
cooperate
to
get
out
the
money
again.
So.
B
And
there
are
tons
of
problems
connected
to
this,
but
when
it
was
developed
there
was
no
bad
idea
out
and
without
a
doubt,
would
still
not
be
a
bad
idea,
and
while
developing
the
tower
I
came
up
with
the
idea,
we
could
use
this,
be
as
coupons
to
basically
provide
the
security
on
that
side.
And
then
you
are
completely
free
on
the
trade
of
the
cold
side,
so
that
the
basic
idea
is
that
both
traders
need
to
set
up
a
PS
coupon,
which
is
higher
as
the
maximum
trade
amount.
B
B
You
yeah.
Let's
make
this
simple
case
$1,000
to
bond
out
in
Europe,
and
most
traders
need
to
set
up
a
BS
coupon,
which
is
higher
or
at
least
covering
this
maximum
trade
amount.
Let's
say
that
the
current
is
Q
price,
it's
more
or
less
1000ps
Q
and
this
bond
I
mean
for
those
who
are
not
familiar.
It's
because
coupon
the
bond
is
basically,
you
are
making
a
transaction
which
is
marked
as
a
bond
lock-up
transaction.
Then
your
P
is
Q
cannot
be
spent
anymore.
No,
but
you
cannot
sell
this
PS
q
anymore
or
whatever.
B
The
only
possible
transaction
which
can
be
used
to
use
with
a
bonded
PS
q
is
the
unlocked
transaction
in
the
unlocked
transaction
is
yeah.
There
is
a
time
lock
defined,
but
it's
not
related
to
the
Bitcoin
time,
lock
its
PS
q
or
tau
specific
time
lock,
and
it
defines
how
long
it
takes
until
you
can
really
spend
the
money.
Again.
Let's
say
the
time
of
the
three
months,
then
let's
say
you
are
locking
up
today,
1000
be
as
few
one
months
later.
You
want
to
unlock
it.
B
Then
you
make
the
unlock
transaction
and
then
you
need
to
wait
or,
depending
on
the
time
block
what
has
been
said.
But
let's
say
it
was
three
months.
Then
you
need
to
wait
another
three
months
and
only
after
this
other
three
months,
you
can
use
this
PS
q,
like
any
other
PS
q
and
sell
it
on
the
market.
Also
in
this
time,
you
cannot
do
anything,
so
it's
basically
locked
in
your
wallet
and
it
can
be
confiscated
by
the
tower
when
there
is
any
reason
like
the
bond
it
grows.
B
It
can
be
confiscated,
and
during
the
unlock
time
in
these
other
three
months,
it
can
be
also
confiscated
and
that's
the
reason
why
there,
a
lot
of
time
need
to
be
longer
like
the
dowel
cycle
and
the
time,
but
the
community
would
need
to
investigate.
So
it
will
be
minimum
two
months
or
so
better
three
months
to
have
enough
time,
and
we
start
basically,
your
proofing,
okay,
I'm
willing
to
make
this
bail
or
to
this
deposit
and
I'm
an
honest
user.
B
When
I,
when
it's
proven
that
I
miss
camera,
that
I
have
betrayed
the
other
trader,
then
the
dowel
stakeholders
have
the
right
to
burn
my
bomb.
So
that's
the
core
of
the
production
mechanism
and
we
stepped
when
yeah,
when
both
sir
and
that's
like
in
real
life,
trades
are
happening
and
normal
stuff
is
happening
when
you're
working
for
a
company
or
whatever
you
don't
I
mean
you
you're
bonding.
Basically
with
your
freedom.
When
you
are
stealing
stuff
in
a
company,
then
they
go
to
court
and
you
may
end
up
in
jail.
B
So
basically
your
life
or
your
freedom
is,
is
your
bond.
What
you
bring
in
in
every
relationship-
and
here
we
are
using
peers
coupons
and
with
that
the
trade
itself
you
can,
you
just
need
to
agree
on
some
contract.
We
are
usually
some
sort
of
the
immediate.
The
dispute,
resolute
resolution
is
included,
but
theoretically
you
could
also
treat
or
not
have
any,
but
then
nobody
can
help
you
and
we
can
use
the
current
mediation
system
basically
for
this,
but
it
could
be
also
a
lawyer
or
any
doesn't
matter.
B
You
just
agree
with
the
other
trader
when
there
is
a
problem.
We
have
this
trusted
third
party
who
will
investigate
the
case?
He
make
a
decision
and
we
both
will
accept
his
decision.
We
trust
this
that
this
is
a
fair
judge
and
whatever
he
decides
is
basically
accepted.
That's
the
terms
of
the
contract,
and
we
are
doing
the
trade
with
whatever
payment
method
can
be
lightning
can
be,
bank
transfer
can
be
face
to
face,
can
be
anything
and
this
terms
all
defined
in
the
contract.
B
B
We
don't
want
to
make
a
bond
for
every
single
trade,
because
then
we
don't
gain
anything
I
mean.
What
we
can
hear
is
that
we
don't
need
to
make
a
Bitcoin
transaction
for
every
trade
anymore,
which
reduces
the
cost
for
a
mining
fees
and
in
future,
mining
fees
will
become
very
expensive.
At
some
point,
we
are
avoiding
all
the
privacy
issues
with
on
China
on
change
transactions.
B
Now
all
the
transactions
and
the
trades
are
connected
when
you're
not
taking
a
lot
of
care
and
extra
you're
paying
costs
on
on
convenience
and
and
the
time
you
need
to
wait
for
a
blockchain
confirmation
with
the
Turin
trade
protocol.
Otherwise
it
wouldn't
be
secure
in
this
model.
You
don't
need
this
when
both
have
confirmed
that
they've
received
the
money,
it's
gone
and
it's
done,
and
there
can
be
basically
instant
when
you
do
a
Bitcoin
to
light
green,
lightning
trade.
B
The
trade
has
been
executed
in
two
seconds
when
both
online
and
you
don't
need
to
be
online
when
you
make
an
offer,
because
they're
I
mean
that
they
offer
the
make
I
need
to
be
online.
The
conceptual
requirement
comes
from
the
point
that
you
need
to
make
their
signature
for
the
deposit
transaction.
So
when
you
shut
down
your
computer,
you
cannot
sign
this
deposit
transaction,
but
that's
not
needed
here
anymore,
so
it
don't
need
to
be
online
anymore.
So,
basically,
we
are
getting
much
more
closely
to
the
experience
of
a
central
exchange.
B
B
Changer,
we
don't
need
a
ballot,
the
Bitcoin
wallet
anymore,
because
you
don't
need
to
try
Pitkin,
it
can
be
anything
and
we
should
remove
than
the
security
risk
to
have
integrated
wallet
and
only
wallet
which
will
be
regarded
as
the
bsq
wallet,
which
is
technical,
is
a
big
component,
but
people
will
not
have
whatever
$100,000
in
bsq
on
the
wallet
but
can
be
that
they
have
hundred
thousand
Bitcoin.
When
we
have
ten
Bitcoin
on
the
wallet,
it's
a
lot
of
money
and
a
lot
of
risk.
B
So
yeah,
it's
a
big
change
in
nearly
all
aspects
and
the
challenge
and
the
core
of
this
protocol
will
be
how
to
track,
because
you
should
be
able
to
reuse
this
bond
for
parallel
trades.
When
you
have
locked
up
5,000
psq,
you
should
be
able
to
make
five
trades
with
$1,000
in
parallel.
When
you
have
closed
one
trade,
then
yeah,
then
you
have
basically
one
thousand
B
is
Q
free
again.
It's
just
that.
The
sum
of
the
parallel
trades
must
not
be
higher
like
the
bonded
amount
and
avoiding
all
volatility,
questions,
and
so
on.
B
So
ignoring
all
this
problem,
so
the
bound
will
be,
in
reality
a
little
bit
higher
to
cover
symbolically
the
risk
and
so
on,
but
just
to
keep
it
simple
at
the
moment.
Let's
ignore
all
this.
So
when
you
start
your
first
trade,
you
have
to
publish
some
date
on
the
peer-to-peer
network
which
is
cryptographically
signed
and,
as
it's
quite
a
complex
protocol,
what
we
had
in
mind.
But
it's
not
we
trying
to
find
a
better
and
more
simple
protocol,
but
the
basics
is
when
you
start
the
trade.
B
You
are
signalling
to
the
network
that
your
bond
has
gone
down
from
five
thousand
to
four
thousand
psq.
That's
only
four
thousand
psq
available
for
other
trades.
When
you
say
start
the
second
trade
and
the
trade
would
be
six
thousand
euro.
The
other
trader
will
see
that
you
cannot
take.
You
cannot
make
this
trade,
because
you
have
only
four
dozen
BS
q
bond
and
that's
off
enough
for
doing
a
six
thousand
dollar
trade
and
that
yeah
and
when
you
close
the
trade,
when
you
complete
it,
then
your
bond
goes
up
again.
B
When
you
open
a
lightning
channel,
you
make
once
a
bit
fun
transaction
where
you're
you're
putting
in
the
money,
and
then
you
can
make
millions
of
of
payments
in
lightning
and
only
when
you
close
it
there's
another
Bitcoin
transaction
and
you
cannot
exceed
the
channel
when
you
only
have
a
very
tiny
Channel,
you
cannot
make
big
payments,
and
here
it's
the
same.
When
you
set
up
the
bond,
you
can
trade
up
trade
amount
of
this
bond.
B
So
we're
sorry,
man
yeah
when
you're
closing
the
trade
basically
upon
this
done,
and
you
cannot
use
it
anymore.
So
yeah,
that's
the
rough
overview,
probably
if
I
got
some
important
stuff
but
I
think
well
the
main
thing:
what
we
have
to
consider
that
it's,
it's
really
a
it's
really
a
new
version
of
bisco.
So
probably
we
have
to
deploy
it
and
also
it's
a
really
a
different
application,
because
it
will
be
such
a
radical
change
to
the
current
model.
B
That
yeah
doesn't
make
sense
to
try
to
make
it
backward,
compatible
or
whatever
and
probably
post
versions
will
coexist
and
because
it's
yeah,
you
need
to
have
this
piece
coupons.
So
some
people
don't
want
to
buy
psq
for
whatever
reason
or
they
don't
want
to
set
up
this
high
bond
because
it's
more
than
hundred
percent
security
deposit.
But
you
can
start
with
small
bonds
when
you
only
want
to
buy
100
euro
in
Bitcoin.
B
Also,
you
make
a
small
bump
with
100
PS
q
and
then,
when
you
have
more
money,
you
make
a
bigger
bond
or
whatever,
but
it
might
not
fit
for
everybody
so,
and
it
will
take
probably
some
time
until
people
could
use
it.
So
of
all
these
reasons,
we
will
probably
keep
both
versions
running
for
a
while
and
I
think
that
it
carries
so
much
advantages
like
a
Serie.
You
can
trade
anything
against
anything.
You
can
make
instance
trades.
You
have
a
lot
of
improvements
from
privacy
from
costs
no
mind.
B
If
you
included
anymore,
you
don't
need
to
be
online
as
a
offer
maker.
So
you
come
to
his
terms
of
improvements
and
I.
Think
most
of
the
users
will
move
over
over
time
to
this,
and
then
the
old
version
probably
will
die
off
because
they're
probably
not
much
interest
anymore,
but
it's
up
to
the
marketer.
So
we
will
that's
a
rough
plan
to
pay
to
get
support
posts
in
parallel.
Until
we
see
that
the
old
protocol
is
not
used
anymore
and
then
at
some
point
it
will
die
off
yeah.
That's
the
basic
overview.
B
I
mean
I.
Don't
want
to
explain
how
the
protocol
works.
It's
described
in
this
document,
but
I
said
we
want
to
continue
to
find
maybe
a
more
simple,
more
clear
reversion.
We
are
not
very
happy.
It
seems
that
it
technically
and
security-wise
and
privacy
wise.
It
seems
that
it
works,
but
we're
not
very
sure,
and
it
would
require
much
more
time
and
analyzes,
and
hopefully
we
come
up
with
a
more
simpler
version.
It's
a
little
bit
in
both
a
little
bit
complex.
B
Are
there
any
questions
I
think
with?
Yet
what
I
want
to
mention
is
that
we
have
to
really
keep
this
in
mind.
I
mean
that's
the
future
of
risk.
The
current
model
with
on
chain
transaction
is
not
future
proof.
When,
when
a
Bitcoin
mining
fee
will
be
again
up
to
$50
or
even
$100,
it
will
be
too
expensive.
We
are
just
paying
for
what
a
bit
for,
and
we
always
have
these
restrictions
with
it's
slow.
B
B
It
makes
everything
much
more
difficult
and
I
think
we
really
should
focus
to
make
this
big
step
forward
to
get
rid
of
all
this
province
by
algorithmic
change,
basically,
that
the
protocol
is
just
based
on
completely
different
concept
and
with
that
it
might
have
different
risk,
and
so
on
the
Dow
and
the
bisque
you
will
become
much
or
important
and
yeah
and
which
that
may
be
vulnerable
volatility
will
become
an
issue
and
so
on.
So
it
has
its
own
problems
in
a
way,
but
I
think
it's
superior
to
what
we
have
at
the
moment.
A
Okay,
thank
you
for
the
initial
presentation.
Let's
just
sum
it
up,
if
let's
say
I
want
to
did
I
understand
that
correctly.
If
we
have
this
new
bisque,
this
bisque
version
tube,
then
it's
basically
a
marketplace
like
let's
say:
Craigslist
Facebook
marketplace
something
like
this.
Where
you
can
find
a
trade
partner,
you
can
buy
a
car.
You
know.
B
I
bisque,
you
can
buy
it
kind,
you
can
I
mean
theoretically,
yes,
but
having
a
real
market
place
requires
reputation
in
a
in
a
currency
exchange.
There
is
a
binary
result:
either
you've
got
the
money
or
not.
You
don't
care.
If
the
money
was
green
or
blue,
whatever
I
mean
it
doesn't
has
a
color
when
you
receive
the
dollar.
You
have
course
when
you
are
buying
an
iPhone
on
eBay.
It
might
be
that
you
receive
the
iPhone
part.
B
B
That
should
be
the
first
goal,
because
otherwise
we
are
trying
to
solve
too
many
problems
at
once.
It
could
be
evolved
later
to
whatever
I
mean
in
the
codes.
It's
a
it's
a
decent
reg
justice
system
where
they're
fond.
It's
basically
the
way
how
you
secure
anything,
any
any
economic
interaction
and
that
can
be
can
be
a
freelancer
marketplace
where
at
work
we
have
work.
Is
that
what
you
exchange?
B
It
can
be
anything
but
I
think
that
sir
that's
a
far
future
and
I
would
not
target
to
too
much
of
this,
because
it's
hard
enough
to
for
the
currency
exchange,
that's
our
core
competence
and
then
yeah.
Then
we
will
see
if
people
want
to
extend
it
to
something
more
and
so,
but
that
might
be
done
also
different
applications
or
whatever.
Okay.
A
A
B
Similar
like
when
we
would
have
hundred
percent
security
deposit
now,
then
it
would
be
very
similar.
I
mean
you
don't
when
you
only
want
to
do
one
trade
and
not
in
parallel,
then
when
you
want
to
buy
at
one
bit
Club
and
it
cost
you
$10,000.
So
you
need
a
$10,000
bond
and
it
would
be
the
same
like
in
a
current
model
when
we
would
have
and
reverse
and
security
deposit.
Then,
as
a
buyer,
you
need
to
have
already
one
Bitcoin,
what
you
put
in
a
security
deposit
and
you
get
it
back
afterwards.
A
Basically,
if
you
want
to
buy
this
car,
then
you
have
to
first
set
up
the
security
deposit
and
then
you
have
to
buy
the
car.
So
you
order
to
get
the
car
you
have
to
spend.
Initially
you
have
to
spend
twice
the
amount,
the
car
costs,
but
then,
if
the
trade
is
completed,
you
can
unlock
the
bond
again
and
then
you
have
this.
This
trade
completed
and.
B
It's
which,
with
some
restriction
but
I,
think
it's
I
mean
in
real
life.
You
don't
need
to
do
it
because
you
are
bonding
your
freedom
when
you
yeah
I
mean
otherwise.
Our
economy
would
not
work
when
you
need
to
have
everywhere
a
hundred
security
bond
of
the
maximum
damage.
When
you
have
a
gaming,
lady
and
you
ask
for
$10,000
upon
to
clean
your
house,
because
maybe
that's
the
maximum
damage,
what
you
could
make,
you
will
not
find
a
cleaning,
lady
or
you
have
to
pay
her
500
euro
an
hour.
B
So
in
real
life
we
are
using
our
freedom
when
she's,
stealing
stuff
you
go
to
the
police
and
she
end
up
in
jail
in
the
worst
case.
So,
but
we
don't
have
this
in
a
decent
price
system
in
where
people
can
trade
unanimously.
So
we
use
money
or
giving
this
secure
again
to
get
over.
This
people
can
borrow
the
money,
but
there
could
be
a
lending
market.
That's
a
very
old
idea!
Where
yeah
you
don't
have
to
security.
You
also
in
the
current
model,
when
you
don't
have
the
natural
Bitcoin.
B
You
can
find
somebody
who
trusts
you
for
whatever
reason,
because
you
who
use
on
Twitter
or
Facebook
or
wherever
or
maybe
you
know
him
personally
and
he's
pouring
you
money
and
then
you
can
trade.
And
then
you
bring
impact
with
interest
rate
of
money
later,
and
we
said
we
can
solve
this
problem
as
well.
B
So
when
you
a
transfer
seed,
you
go
basically
to
the
bitcoin
bank
to
a
to
normal
bank
and
and
ask
for
a
loan
for
$100
for
$10,000
for
buying
a
car,
and
then
you
can
trade
and
get
the
car
and
then
you're
paying
the
bank
back.
Their
loan
at
the
bank
will
do
with
user
risk
analysis
and
rating.
If
your
trust
was
your
not
and
they
are
taking
a
risk
that
you're
not
paying
back
and
you're
paying
a
fee
for
this.
A
B
A
C
B
B
B
I
mean
that's
an
open,
maybe
people
are
building
their
own
kind
of
like
interfaces
where
they're
connecting
their
Monera
wallet
and
taking
the
risk
when
somebody
exit
that
them
on
a
robotic
attempted
but
I
think
we
should
avoid
to
implement
this
delivered
it
because
we
are
carrying
them
everywhere.
It
can
expose
to
this
vulnerability
and
there
is
still
this
wallet
for
psq
and
also
you
need
Bitcoin
for
trading.
Psq
I
mean
one
thing
you
can
swap.
You
can
convert
Witkin
to
psq
in
an
atomic
transaction.
B
So
you
don't
need
to
trade,
be
askew
like
an
alkene.
Now
they
could
be
already
done
now,
because
psq
is
technically
bitcoin.
So
when
you
want
to
exchange
psq,
you
can
make
it
in
bond
transaction
where
one
input
is
psq.
One
input
is
Bitcoin
from
the
other
trader
and
the
outputs
are
swapped
and
there's
no
security
risk
and
no
trust
issues,
because
it's
one
single
atomic
and
transaction
either
it
works
or
it
doesn't
work.
So
it's
really
a
conversion.
Basically,
you
click
a
button.
B
Come
work,
yeah,
there's
a
market
for
first
we
asked
you
to
Bitcoin
and
you
take
the
best
offers.
You
see
what
will
be
the
conversion
rate,
you're
clicking
a
button
and
your
conversion,
your
bid,
contributes
q
and
with
the
neck
blockchain
confirmation
you
have
it
and
this
functionality
will
be
in
and
so
technically
it
will
be
a
Bitcoin
wallet,
because
it's
because
Q
is
beacon
technically,
but
it
should
be
really
limited
for
PS
q
and
it
shouldn't
be
used
as
a
kinda
like
a
savings
or
trading
wallet.
B
People
should
use
a
hardware
wallet
or
their
Bitcoin
core
for
a
lightning
or
whatever,
and
that
we
are
we're
exterminators
to
professional
wallets,
who
are
only
doing
wallets
and
nothing
else.
We
shouldn't
become
a
bollard
provider
like
we're
doing
now,
anyway.
It
was
not
a
good
idea
at
the
end,
but
it
was
a
requirement
because
we
had
a
trade
protocol
requires
a
wallet.
B
B
Yeah
yeah,
it's
it's
a
new,
it's
really
a
new
application,
it's
and
it
helps
us
and
that's
why
I'm
so
fascinated
by
there
were
so
many
hot
problems
where
there
were
basically
no
solutions
like
how
you
could
speed
up
a
biscuit
rate
to
make
it
really
fast
or
how
you
can
avoid
that
or
for
makin,
don't
need
to
be
online
well.
How
can
we
avoid
that?
B
There
are,
there
are
no
piracy
from
the
production
anymore,
because
you
only
have
to
one
bond
and
the
bond
bond
can
carry
it
up
like
lightning
hundreds
or
thousands
of
trade
cent
they're
not
really
connected.
I
mean
this:
the
protocol,
how
to
track
the
bonds
that
is
it
yeah.
That's
a
challenge:
how
to
do
this
to
protect
privacy,
but
I
think
it
works
good
enough
already
what
we
have
the
idea,
it's
good
enough
to
be
completely
superior
to
that.
What
we
have
now
are
there.
A
B
Be
there
a
pure
mediation,
the
mediator
make
is
a
church,
we
make
a
statement
and
the
execution
will
be
by
the
Tau,
and
maybe
we
can
provide
this
as
well.
That's
basically,
this
current
arbitrator.
What
we're
implementing
now
is
a
kind
like
a
a
coupie,
basically
a
marketplace
for
people
who
are
buying
your
claim
and
giving
you
the
money
directly
for
a
tea,
that's
what
the
arbitrator
is
doing.
So
there
are
two
roles,
yet
one
is
just
judge
who
is
doing
the
decision,
but
he
cannot
execute
it.
B
B
I
wanted
to
start
to
work
a
few
weeks
on
it,
because
I
was
under
estimating
a
little
bit.
I
was
expecting
or
hoping
that
the
court
protocol
was
solid
enough
to
just
go
for
it,
but
after
analyzing
it
further
I
had
the
feeling
it
needs
more
time
and
because
it's
then
a
really
a
strong,
hard
work
with
a
new
application.
We
should
combine
it
with
other
improvements
like
DDoS
protection
for
European
Network,
many
of
the
things,
and
we
should
use
this
opportunity
to
make
really
big
improvements
in
many
areas.
B
So
we
shouldn't
rush
it
to
just
make
it
I
think
the
core
protocol,
when
we
would
do
the
idea,
what
we
have
it's
not
super
complicated.
It's
a
little
bit
more
like
the
current
protection
to
assume
it
could
be
done.
I
could
do
it
broadly.
This
core
protocol
I,
could
do
probably
in
one
months
and
then
the
rest.
Is
you
I
work
and
it's
much
easier
like
now,
because
the
trade
protocol
is
just
clicking
a
few
buttons
and
showing
some
stuff
and
the
mediation
we
have.
B
It's
not
I
mean
all
the
complex
stuff
with
creating
transactions
and
and
and
ensuring
this
security
will
be
all
done
and
delegated
to
the
to
this
bond
tracking
protocol,
and
this
phone
tracking
protocol
is
just
conceptually
complex
but
implementation,
wise
yeah.
It
uses
some
hashes,
it
uses
peer-to-peer
network
uses
signatures,
nothing,
there's
no
rocket
science
behind
this,
it's
just
how
it
all
plays
together
and
that
it's
secure
and
protects
privacy
and
the
incentives
are
correct
and
so
on.
B
That's
a
tricky
part
and
to
be
really
sure
that
it's
secure
because
we
met
I
mean
that
could
really
scale
up
that's
another
thing
there
are
trade
limits
will
be
another
topic
because
yeah
the
arbitrator
doesn't
take
much
risk
of
the
new
year
and
probably
there
are
no
much
reasons
why
you
have
a
small
trade
limits.
Anymore
I
mean
there
might
be
other
reasons
when
we
think
further,
but
from
the
security
point
of
view,
it's
a
very
different
thing.
B
I,
don't
see,
I
think
that
the
core
protocol
needs
more
time,
because
when
we
make
a
mistake
there
and
we
see
we
yeah,
we
use
a
very
some
security
or
privacy
issue
and
we
get
up,
and
then
it's
related
to
the
towel
and
psq,
because
psq
will
become
the
central
element
here
when
somebody
managed
to
hack
it
and
steal
money
or
whatever
it
has
a
direct
influence
on
the
towel
and
the
psq,
and
also
this
analyzes.
What
it
means
for
the
psq
ecosystem
and
economy
need
to
be
done
because
it
changed.
B
The
psq
system
was
not
designed
for
being
a
security
model
for
trading
was
designed
for
contributors
to
get
paid
by
working
on
Pisgah,
and
now
we
are
mixing
it
with
a
second
use
case,
which
will
be
I
mean
the
amount.
What
when,
when
all
traders
will
move
to
their
and
use
it
for
trading
I
mean
we
had
25
million
volumes
the
last
month
on
on
manera,
mostly
so
when
they
would
like
to
use
be
a
few.
They
need
to
buy
a
lot
of
peers
q2
to
cover
this,
so
we'd
be
a
completely
different
economy.
B
Now
it's
basically
only
the
traders
for
the
trading
see
which
tiny
amounts
and
then
there
would
be
a
huge
demand
on
peers
view.
So
we
get
very
different
new
circumstances,
with
volatility
with
antenna
attacks
with
volatility
or
whatever.
So
it
needs
a
lot
of
more
salt
and
analysis,
and
it's
not
hundred
percent
clear.
Maybe
we
come
to
the
conclusion:
it's
not
a
good
idea.
B
We
cannot
do
it
safely
or
as
it
were,
in
a
privacy
protecting
way
or
it
creates
too
much
risk
for
a
doubt
and
before
we
are
there
that
we
are
really
sure
wouldn't
make
sense.
I
mean
the
implementation
itself.
I
said
I
think
when
I
would
work
full-time
on
it
the
whole
in
a
kind
of
a
quick
and
dirty
way
without
doing
other
improvements.
I
could
do
it,
maybe
in
one
or
two
months
it's
not
such
a
big
effort,
but
your.
A
Flirtation
is
always
the
smallest
part.
If
you
know
what
you
want
to
do
and
how
it
works,
and
it
implementation
is
quite
a
smaller
part
yeah.
But
to
rephrase
the
question
you
said
earlier:
well,
the
new
trade
for
the
car
is
available.
Basically
yeah,
that's
for
with
the
next
release,
1.2
yeah,
and
how
long
do
you
believe?
B
We
have
that's
a
basic
thing.
We
should
be
very
wary
about
our
priorities.
What's
our
we're
nobility's
and
work
on
this,
because
we
don't
have
unlimited
time
and
a
major
other
topic
will
be
DDoS
protection.
Additional
we
have.
Our
part
is
what
we
have
to
work
on,
and
this
I
mean
this
works
with
this
current
rate.
Protocol
mining
fees
are
not
the
problem
at
the
moment,
so
we
are
not
in
a
rush
that
we
need
this
version
to
in
the
next
three
months,
but
we
should
keep
it
in
a
quite
hybrid
keep
up.
B
It
will
need
its
time
and
and
paste
to
to
get
to
a
really
solid
solution.
There
I
would
say:
let's
keep
it
as
a
medium
priority
project
in
the
background
and
anybody
who
has
competence
in
this
conceptually
work
and
this
analyzes
should
help
us
to
get
more
close
to
a
solution,
but
in
we
shouldn't
just
put
our
Huntress
and
priority
on
that
and
forget
all
the
rest.
I
mean
we
could
do
it,
but
the
decision
when
we
really
want
to
do
this.
Okay,
then,
let's
see
focus
hundred
percent
on
this,
but
yeah.
B
We
need
the
time
to
get
this
core
protocol
really
solid
and
assume.
Where
you
have
to
solid.
We
can
make
it
a
priority
because
doesn't
make
sense
and
that's
one
reason
like
we
state
the
eyes
I'm
not
following
too
much
they're
issues
there,
but
when
we
put
a
lot
of
effort
now
on
the
API
and
a
lot
of
complexities
to
represent
the
current
trade
protocol
with
the
API
and
then
maybe
in
three
months
in
the
best
case,
we
would
have
version
two
and
working
on
will
die
off.
B
Then
all
this
work
is
for
nothing
and
the
new
API,
as
the
version
to
the
API
will
be
very
different
and
much
more
simple,
because
there
yeah
all
the
security
issues
are
gone
and
you
just
have
a
few
I
receive
the
money.
I
confirm
to
the
contract
and
and
I
open
a
dispute.
A
few
button
clicks
basically
which,
in
exchange
with
the
trade
peer
and
all
the
complex
stuff,
is
done
by
the
protocol
itself.
B
That
will
not
be
part
of
the
API,
probably
and
it's
we
have
to
keep
this
in
mind
and
the
same
with
this
monetary
wallet.
Integration
yeah
when
we
integrate
this
now
and
it
costs
us
a
lot
of
effort
and
money
and
and
then
with
version
2.
We
don't
want
to
start
to
integrate
wallets
again
because
that's
a
goal
to
get
rid
of
the
wallets
to
reduce
this
vulnerability
and
there
will
maybe
some
solutions
when
people
really
want
it.
There
they're
installing,
maybe
some
whatever
to
Land's
and
they
are
connecting
their
wallets.
B
A
B
B
With
full
speed
on
it,
it
can
be
done
all
very
quickly
and
when
nobody's
working
out
it
takes
five
years.
It's
depends
all
on
contribution
and
on
the
people
know
how
to
do
it
at
its
place,
but
I
mean
one
thing:
what
I
didn't
cover
here
is,
but
we
don't
have
enough
time,
but
it's
actually
it's
not
really
rocket.
Sun
and
like
this
new
trade
protocol,
I
mean
it
is
implementation.
It's
it's
a
step.
It's
a
call.
B
It
task
runner
separate
several
tasks,
doing
several
stuff
like
verifying
a
message,
doing,
verification
of
the
peer
or
whatever
and
then
creating
a
transaction,
sending
a
message
to
the
other
P.
And
then
you
have
a
listener
where
you
wait
for
the
expected
message
from
the
P
again,
it's
not
really
rocket
scientist
just
code
that
yeah
and
it's
not
sure
for
the
one
who
has
written
it
is
much
easier,
but
it
could
be
done
by
any
developer.
Who
is
experienced?
How,
if.
B
I
mean
to
think
about
this.
Of
course,
I
mean
to
be
great.
If
we're
finding
the
solution
sets,
not
everybody
can
do
it.
Isn't
that
something
more
difficult
fly
codes
with
this
new
trade
protocol
to
find
this
yeah
to
find
a
really
good
solution.
That's
the
difficult
thing,
and
not
not
everybody
has
to
tell
every
sensor
knowledge
about
all
the
stuff,
but
the
implementation.
A
C
C
If
we
look
at
the
let's
say
the
person
who's
using
their,
you
know,
United
States
bank
account
to
buy
$100
worth
of
Bitcoin,
so
they're
going
to
have
to
buy
$100
worth
of
bisque
to
buy
that
hundred
dollars
of
Bitcoin
then
purchase
the
Bitcoin,
and
then
they
have
this
bisque
bond
that
they
need
to
then
I
mean
they
could
keep
save
it
for
later
if
they
plan
to
purchase
in
the
future.
But
you
know,
let's
say
this
was
just
a
one-off
trade.
C
C
Maybe
it
wouldn't
make
sense
for
me
to
have
this
bisque
bond,
because
I'm
trading
quite
regularly
and
as
soon
as
I
sell
one
offer
I
can
you
know
basically
reuse
my
bisque
bond
to
open
a
new
one,
but
even
at
that
scale
it
suddenly
doesn't
make
a
ton
of
sense
for
me
to
let's
say,
keep
one
Bitcoin
worth
of
bisque.
In
addition
to
you
know
the
trading
capital,
that
I
would
need
to
kind
of
facilitate
the
other
orders,
so
I
think
anyway.
B
Yeah,
it's
I,
I
mean
you
have
there,
you
have
basically
three
options:
either
you
use
centralized
exchanges
where
you
yeah
zero
privacy
and
Fuki
by
sea,
and
everything
and
you're
completely
exposed
to
political
or
circumstances
when
they
change,
and
maybe
your
bid
can
get
confiscated
or
I,
come
to
you
and
know
that
we
have
traded
the
city
finance
whatever
at
one
time,
not
changing
so
I
mean
you
exposed
to
certain
risk
in
future
work.
Nobody
knows
and
nobody
can
estimate
how
there
will
be
those
people
who
are
not
feeling
very
comfortable
with
this.
B
Maybe
it's
too
much
effort
and
you
go
to
point
base,
or
whatever
go
to
a
meet-up
and
by
the
in
face-to-face
or
to
ATM.
There
are
options,
it's
not
for
everybody,
not
for
every
use
case,
but
I
think
for
our
users,
who
are
regularly
trading
who
care
about
privacy.
They
get
solved.
A
lot
of
the
problem.
B
B
A
big
disadvantage
will
be
this
base
account
but
security
deposit,
which
is
locked
up
for
long
time,
because
when
you
make
a
bank
charge
fact,
it
can
happen
three
weeks
before
weeks
later
as
well,
and
we
need
to
protect
against
this
so
and
that's
another
thing.
We
can
support
more
risky
payment
methods
because
when
you
use
PayPal
and
you
make
a
charge
break
after
three
weeks-
yeah
you
upon
the
still
gun,
because
it's
locked
up
for
three
months
but
of
course
the
cost
is
that
people
need
to
do
it
and
it
it's
an
open
question.
B
Maybe
we
find
out
nobody's
interest
because
nobody
want
to
do
it,
but
then
they
I
think
it
shouldn't
complain
that
about
the
current
problems
and
yeah,
it's
it's
a.
Maybe
it's
important
part
of
our
research
before
really
work.
I
need
to
get
a
little
bit
more
user
feedback
and
see
if
they
would
accept
it.
When
you
really
understand
it,
I
mean
the
first
thing:
is
people
are
skeptical
with
everything
new
and
biskits
took
long
time
until
they
trust
it
and
use
the
system
because
it
was
new
and
different
and
yeah
all.
C
Right,
I
think
that's
a
great
answer.
I
mean
first,
just
speaking
to
the
point
that
it's
not
gonna,
be
everything
for
everybody
that
that's
very
reasonable.
It's
you
know,
has
kind
of
specific
narrow
use
cases
and
you're
trying
to
address
those
people
that
are
unaddressed
by
other.
You
know
products
and
I.
B
Mean
that's
another
big
thing.
What
we
have
to
keep
in
mind,
I
mean
future
is
moving
away
from
Fiat
or
from
cash
at
least
and
I
wouldn't
be
surprised
when
at
the
next
big
currency
exchanges,
all
the
government
and
introduce
digital
currencies
and
there's
no
cash
anymore
and
the
tissue
currency
will
be
likely,
even
if
it's
a
government,
so
it
will
become
until
centralized
digital
currencies,
it's
much
more
closer
to
our
coins
or
to
stable
coins
like
the
current
field
system.
B
So
there
might
be
a
chance
that,
basically,
in
future
we
are,
we
have
yeah,
we
have
ways
or
another
option
habitat
the
stable
coins
become
more
more
important
as
replacement
for
field,
and
most
people
don't
need
the
tradition
of
field
anymore.
We
solve
the
big
problems
and
then
you
know
basically
on
al
coinciding
ecosystems.
B
For
this
we
could
only
work
with
such
trust,
less
atomic
transactions.
That
might
be
another
direction
where
we
could
be
go,
which
would
be
even
much
superior.
But
here
you
have
the
problem
by
it.
Should
people
convert
their
Manero
to
a
bisque,
color
coin
money
era
or
at
a
dollar
and
then
how
to
do
the
packing?
And
all
this
there
are
some
ideas.
B
It's
not
completely
out
of
the
big
problem
is
that
you
would
and
competing
with
the
big
players
who
have
already
built
this
market
and
infrastructure
like
it
here
mainly,
and
it
they're
not
good
chance
that
you
can
win
against
this.
But
who
knows
maybe
the
future
is
that
everybody
use
tokens
on
either
Mounier
theorem
or
use
tokens
on
on-site
chains
like.
B
B
It's
I
mean
they.
They
have
the
other
problems,
yeah,
how
you
do
this
pecking
and
that
no
I
have
not
seen
any
trust,
less
censorship,
persistent
solution
for
yeah
for
doing
this
tokenization
and
you
don't
want
to
trust
another
test
with
basic
aging
theater
or
who
is
and
block
stream,
is
maybe
the
most
promising,
but
there
it's
still
not
decentralized
in
not
censorship
resistant
so
and
it's
an
American
company
when
it
become
big
and
they
get
they
get
KY
seed
and
get
on
the
pressure
like
any
other
big
company.
So
it's
it's
an
open
field.
B
It
we
are.
We
are
on
a
an
innovation
front
where
nobody
knows
how
it
what
will
be
autumn
ro
will
look
like
and
I
think
we
have
to
make
experiments,
and
we
shouldn't
assume
that
this
trade
protocol
will
be
not
a
solution
for
the
next
20
years.
I
mean
we
are
experimenting,
and
hopefully
we
can
help
to
find
out
something
which
might
be
a
feasible
long-term
solution,
but
maybe
not
yeah.
C
C
C
B
Not
I
mean
it's
I
said
that,
would
it
could
be
done
alright
now
this
conversion
that
basically
trading
psq,
will
not
be
liked.
Now
a
manual
process
you're
just
clicking
I
mean
there
will
be
still
offers,
but
you
take
the
best
offers
you
want
to
convert
from
Pitkin
to
psq.
You
take
the
first
three
offers
with
the
best
price.
You
see
that
the
total
price
of
your
converge
right.
B
You
click
the
button
you
executing
those
offers,
as
you
are
exchanging
with
you're
making
these
atomic
transactions
and
after
the
next
blockchain,
you
have
to
be
asked
you
and
we
said
I,
don't
see
any
scalability
issues
the
demand
model
and
the
economic
model
will
be
very
different.
Now
it's
there.
The
traders
who
meet
is
few
trading
feed
to
get
the
cheaper
feed
who
order
primary
demand.
B
Creation
I
mean
additionally,
of
course,
that
can
be
speculators
who
want
to
invest
in
who
believe
that
the
psq
price
will
be
higher
and
start
to
five
years
queue,
but
so
far
we
have
not
seen
much
of
this.
So
I
think
the
market
is
90%
driven
by
traders
and
we
are
burning
roughly
I.
Think
fifty
thousand
six
to
eighty
thousand
psq
per
months
and
that's
not
bad,
but
it's
it's
not
a
huge
amount.
B
We
are
also
issuing
last
month's
four
hundred
thousand
psq
I
mean
it
was
a
little
bit
more
like
usually
about,
in
average,
with
also
6070
thousand
psq
what
we
issue
per
month,
so
it's
more
or
less
breakeven,
but
it
doesn't
create
over
demand
on
on
the
buy
side
other
on
the
many.
What
you
see
now,
when
people.
B
Yeah
and
that's
probably
a
reason
why
it's
pretty
much
on
the
bond
dollar.
It's
like
a
stable
point
surprisingly,
but
I
think
it's
contributors
get
basically
promised
with
one
dollar,
so
they
don't
sell
lower,
usually,
and-
and
so
it's
floats
around-
this
want
a
lot,
but
when
they're,
when
traders
need
to
buy
a
piece
queue
for
bonding,
the
demand
will
be
much
much
higher
because
yeah
when
you're
trading,
whatever
ten
Bitcoin
in
parallel,
you
need
you
need
amount
of
ten
hundred
thousand
peers
queue
and
that's
just
one
trader.
So
we
can.
B
That
chat
wants
the
truth,
but
yeah,
but
basically
I
mean
I,
think
it's
willing
and
all
those
artists
open
issue
up
any
to
analyze
to
get
some
model
and
ideas
how
it
will
behave
when
we
started
there
might
be
depending
how
fast
it
starts,
but
there
might
be
huge
increase
of
price
and
then,
when
it's
settled,
then
there's
not
much
demand
and
the
price
might
refresh,
and
we
don't
want
to
have
high
volatility
of
good
for
the
system.
So
all
these
things
need
to
be
analyzed
and
take
in
consideration.
What
are
the
risks?
I
think.
B
As
long
as
the
market
is
growing
yeah,
when
we
get
new
users,
they
need
to
buy
new
bonds
to
the
price
will
go
up
again
when
people
are
leaving,
then
basically
the
price
would
go
down
because
they
are
unlocking
their
bond
and
it
will
take
a
few
months.
It
I
think
it
has
a
stabilizing
factor
when
there
would
be
some
whatever
small
events.
We
had
a
big
back
and
people
are
leaving
immediately,
but
to
unlock
the
pound.
B
The
effect
will
be
only
visible
in
three
or
four
months,
and
basically
people
cannot
lock
lean
in
the
system
for
a
few
months
and
that's
good
for
the
stability
of
bsq,
maybe
not
to
go
to
other
traders,
because
they
cannot
react
so
quickly.
They
cannot
liquidate
their
bsq
they're,
taking
basically
some
risk,
and
now
it's
it
has
its
own
properties.
That
need
to
be
analyzed
from
all
the
suspects
ice
and
it's
hard
to
say,
I'm,
not
trying
to
be
saying
comfortable,
I.
Think
for
the
peers,
cuber
eyes.
B
It
will
be
very
bullish
and
good,
but
for
stability
and
the
risk
for
the
Dow
it
might
be
a
danger
and
I
don't
want
I
think
we
shouldn't
put
the
towel
on
risk
that
it
can
fail
because
of
a
secondary
use
case
which
could
crash
the
market,
and
then
nobody
will
work
and
bisque
anymore,
because
there,
the
skew
is
too
volatile
that
nobody
would
accept
it.
Then
we
would
have
killed
our
primary
use
case
to
implement
or
to
buy
secondary
use
case.
So
we
have
to
be
careful
yeah.
C
Because
I
really
I
really
like
the
current
use
case,
where
the
fees
I'm
basically
getting
a
discount
on
your
fees,
is
then
going
and
getting
burned
up.
You
know
in
a
proportion
to
the
amount
that's
being
released
to
the
developers
to
pay.
For
you
know
all
the
costs
of
running
these,
but
I
just
I
I
can
see
that
the
like
my
best
guess
on
how
bsq
would
behave
in
a
market
where
everyone
needed
to
have
a
100%
security
deposit.
Is
that
it
would.
C
B
B
Yeah
I
mean
it
depends
on
the
curls
right.
We
we
generally
have
to
philosophy,
want
to
grow
organically
and
not
in
with
huge
events
or
whatever,
and
we
did
this
as
well
so
I
mean
in
bisque.
It
was
growing
slowly,
organically
and
I.
Think
that's
healthy
and
all
the
ways
be
askew.
It's
the
same
with
in
that
practice
speculate.
This
is
the
price
was
not
going
up
like
crazy
and
then
crashing
like
with
other.
When
Alcuin
is
issued
to
you.
B
B
Nobody
knows
and
it
it's
some
risk
and
I
said
the
security
from
economic
attacks
or
risks
on
is
cue,
I
think
it's
quite
high
in
the
current
model
and
it
will
be
higher
risk,
I
assume
with
the
new
model,
because
there
could
be.
It
could
be
certain
complex
attack
scenarios
where
you
are
you're
doing
a
lot
of
trades
and
you're
crashing
the
market.
And
then
you
can
basically
abuse
over
use
your
bond
because
you
have
open
trades,
but
they
are
not
really
covered
anymore,
and
maybe
the
u.s.
B
chemical
trade
or
whatever
can
be
all
kind
of
weird
scenarios.
What
we
have
to
think
about,
even
if
they
are
unlikely
and
which
could
get
to
try
to
manipulate
the
price,
could
become
some
issue.
And
it's
at
the
moment,
as
nearly
no
issue
and
OPIC
risk
for
this,
but
there
are
a
few
as
well
as
the
contributor.
You
could
try
the
question
mark
to
get
a
high
of
his
to
compensation,
request
and
later
yeah.
B
I
would
make
it
dependent
on
this
analyzing
and
finding
a
solid
solution
where
we
are
happy
with
the
haunting
protocol
when
we
had
both
so
which
could
be
done
in
in
one
month
so
one
week
when
we
have
people
working
on
this,
but
currently
nobody's
working
on
this.
So
it's
that's
those
that
apollon
like
space
a
given.
We
have
a
team
working
on
this
and
really
competent
and
making
this
and
we
get
to
the
solution.
The
risk
are
low
enough
that
we
want
to
go
for
it
and
we
have
a
solid
solution
for
this.
B
C
A
B
But
you
know
I
mean
now.
We
have
not
spent
much
time
at
all
on
this
new
idea
and
just
by
working
on
it,
we
can
find
maybe
much
much
better
solution
like
coming
yesterday.
I
come
up
with
this
new
idea
that
there
are
betrayed
that
can
do
can
play
this
role
of
the
pond
dealer,
who
is
buying
your
pond
basically
and
that
we
are
resolved
thing
all
this
a
lot
of
the
problems
and
improving
a
lot
of
the
concept.
B
Everybody
trust
me
so
I
get
very
cheap
in
this
new
model
and
I.
Don't
care
I
only
get
the
benefits,
so
I
would
not
yeah
I
said
I
think
like
in
Pisgah
everything
the
resources
and
the
contributor
sets
our
bottleneck.
When
we
have
enough
people
working
on
all
this
stuff,
we
can.
We
can
move
mountains,
but
we're
not
there
and
that's
where
a
welcome
to
open
source.
Yes,
but
I
mean
we
have
the
big
benefit.
Now
we
have
the
power.
I
mean
all
these
are
open
source
projects.
You
don't
get
paid
you.
B
A
I
already
said:
I
do
not
see
the
issue
with
implementing
it.
I
see
the
issue
with
designing
it,
and
the
second
step,
of
course,
would
in
already
already
said
that
people
actually
start
using
the
stuff,
because
so
much
different
than
biscuits.
Now
and
and
if
you
move,
maybe,
if
you
move
too
quickly,
we
can
kill,
kill.
Bisque
is
now
so
now.
B
Should
we
have
to
take
care
of,
and
yeah
and
I
said
it's
blend
anyway?
It's
a
parallel
Road
in
the
worst
case.
We
implemented
it
and
nobody
use
it
and
it
was
a
failed
investment,
but
we
should
be
careful
and
be
very
aware
of
this
possible
outcome
to
avoid
that,
it
will
happen
so
to
do
everything
that
we
are
making
it
smooth
enough
for
conversion
that
people
are
really
using
it
as
well,
but
I
see
is
all
this
thinking
a
part
of
implementation
or
the
first
step
yeah.
B
We
need
to
do
all
this
mental
thinking
about
it
to
get
really
a
solid
model
analysis
and
everything
before
getting
to
code,
and
so
and
that
requires
resources,
development
and,
of
course
those
qualities
are
less
widely
deployed.
Like
coding
company
competence
yeah,
we
have
to
find
the
right
people
who
have
talent
for
work
on
such
stuff.
A
A
If
not
I
will
yeah?
Let's,
let's
close
this
def
core
short
summary
we
talked
about.
We
talked
about
the
current
issues
with
arbitration
and
the
ethics
surface.
Arbitration
provides
in
the
current
implementation
of
bisk.
The
new
trade
protocol
is
there
to
get
rid
of
this
of
this
weakness
of
the
arbitration
role
it.
It
does
not
get
rid
of
the
arbitration
role
by
itself,
but
it
changes
their
role
in
a
drastical
way
so
that
we
don't
have
the
same
ethics
service
anymore.
A
A
The
best
question
to
is
basically
his
is
a
more
general
marketplace
and
it
changes
the
behavior
of
trades
and
so
on
for
the
user,
and
it
is
also
difficult
for
for
onboarding
of
new
users,
because
it's
it
costs
twice
the
amount
it
costs.
With
current
the
current
PC
version
anyway,
the
basic
version
2
is
is
already
there
in
our
minds.
A
It
is
not
there,
it's
not
implemented
yet,
and
it
is
more
of
a
way
to
try
out
new
stuff
and
if
it
works,
it's
very
good
and
then
we
can
move,
maybe
in
half
a
year
in
a
year.
So
the
big
question:
if
we
don't,
if
you
don't
succeed
through
well,
we
try
it
at
least
we
try
it,
and
basically
that
is
there
is
it
yes,
as
always,
the
recording
of
this
def
core
will
be
available
on
YouTube
I
will
I
will
do
some
create
some
meeting
minutes.
A
However,
I
will
keep
this
more
because
there
are
a
lot
of
proposals
out
there
with
all
the
technical
details
we
talked
about
today
and
you
can
read
up
a
more
complete
picture.
There.
I
will
post
the
links
of
course
yeah,
and
that
is
it
a
small
note.
I
will
there
will
not
be
a
def
call
in
the
upcoming
three
weeks
or
so
because
I'm
in
vacation,
if
someone
else
does,
of
course
I
don't
know,
I
will
not
do
any
def
course
yeah.
That's
basically
it
thanks
for
joining
and
have
a
nice
day.