-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 419
merchants: list retoswap #2550
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
merchants: list retoswap #2550
Conversation
✅ Deploy Preview for barolo-time-757cf9 ready!Built without sensitive environment variables
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Better to keep only human reviewed translations.
For approving Retoswap better to make do some research customer satisfaction, operators' professionalism, knowledge, dispute handling etc.
AFAIK Retoswap team lost their access to their group chat in the past. Handles disputes late.
preland
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I can’t confirm that the translations are accurate, but I don’t see any glaring issues with this at a cursory look
|
Copying over what I wrote this morning in the Matrix room: The PR as-is, with Retoswap its own "tile", looks ok to me. I don't see any need to bring some hierarchy into this because in the future there may be more networks based on Haveno technology. Seems to me we can easily add e.g. 2 more such "tiles" for 2 more such networks, still without any two-level presentation, first level "Haveno" and second level the individual networks. The text now clearly mentions the relationship between Haveno and Retoswap, which is necessary, and sufficient how it's proposed in that PR. |
@nahuhh Are you still in favor of a sublisting? |
|
at this point in time, i'm neutral |
|
It seems Retoswap lacks trading rules unlike Bisq, what are the rules? what are the penalties? |
|
Afaik the rules (assuming they are sticking to the original Haveno trading rules) are simply: each side puts up a deposit amount into a 2:3 multisig. If any issue arises, arbitration is able to then determine who is at fault and will distribute the deposit as needed. |
|
where are original trading rules? |
I can't see rules in this link. |
This is a link to a PDF file detailing the exact process of a trade on Haveno: https://docs.haveno.exchange/resources/trade-protocol.pdf |
|
If you are talking more along the lines of trader conduct, afaik the base Haveno protocol doesn’t have anything specifically for that, though there were some ideas thrown around about using some sort of gossip protocol |
|
Rules aren't same as process of a trade or protocol, check the Bisq's for an example: https://bisq.wiki/Table_of_penalties |
|
Haveno’s rules are the protocol. When a transaction is started through Haveno, both parties agree to the terms of the transaction. If both parties are satisfied with the outcome of the transaction, then it is closed. If a party is not satisfied, then an arbitrator can be allowed to determine the outcome. If you are talking about more general/conduct rules, Haveno doesn’t have those. And considering that Erciccione was one of the main early contributors to Haveno…..had it attempted to do so, it likely would’ve been thrown out around the time that they left the project. |
If you meant Retoswap's rules are Haveno's protocol. The protocol doesn't explain how fiat payments have to be.
It has to, at least in basic level. Examples can be found on Bisq's page. Also Retoswap has non-written rule third party payments are not allowed (like any other p2p market including Bisq and Localmonero), so Retoswap has rules and they're NOT Haveno's protocol.
So it depends on arbitrator's mood. In overall I'm expecting more professionalism, than hobby like project. Not keep losing access to their SimpleX group, updating their fork repo properly (squashing and signing commits, indicating its retoswap repo not haveno) Bonus points if; transparency on how Retoswap makes profit, funds development, hires developer/arbitrator, takes decisions. (Bisq is very transparent on this with their DAO system.) Also users should be aware risk of exit scam unlike Bisq since it doesn't have DAO or equivalent. |
|
I’ve been intentionally focusing the scope of my discussion towards that of Haveno instead of Retoswap, as I do not know if they have implemented any additional checks or rules since their initial launch. I would go into more detail about my many gripes about Reto, but I’ve been yelled at in the past by other community members because of speaking against it, so I’ll just stop myself at saying that I would have some personal concerns if I had to actively use it 🤷♂️ If anyone actually affiliated with RetoSwap could chime in on this, that would be highly appreciated, as I don’t personally feel like trying to figure out what’s going on over there atm😊 |
Should fix #2304