Oddbean

Bisq user here, no active involvement with the project apart from occasional market maker trades. Interested in where you are coming from with that endorsement for Haveno at the expense of Bisq? First, the endorsement for Haveno. I could understand a general framing around privacy, involving a fork that focuses on XMR and BTC, (Haveno being XMR-First, whereas Bisq is perhaps XMR-Second), but credibility goes down the drain with ETH, BCH, and LTC being described as "interesting and useful". This isn't 2016-2018 Blockchain Euphoria Season. A few comments on the FAQ's critique of @Bisq 1. Sending bitcoin direct from a bisq account to a coinbase account (or equivalent) is first rate stupidity... does any one really go to all that trouble for NKYC, only to hop directly to KYC? 2. Yes, the BSQ token is an integral opportunity for users to save on fees, and those savvy enough will avoid the token and just do maker trades instead. However, if there is a "a huge privacy concern" that makes it "possible to link", then has this been done or is it just conjecture because a token is being used? 3. With the security patch, which seems to be the only realy concern about the project, did an actual attacker exploit the vulnerability? If the problem has been patched quickly and nothing significant discovered since 2021, that all sounds like good practice rather than compromise. There's always room for innovation, for example robosats has done away with the dao and relies on lightning, and haveno will have it's own niche too, but it's been a work in progress for ages... and the pitch of 'Bisq is so bad but we still like ETH/BCH' isn't congruent.