For very low volume offers, it can happen that the minimum buyer security
deposit by coin value is bigger than the maximum security deposit by
percentage of trade amount.
This caused the security deposit validity check in the offer editor to fail,
making it impossible to edit these offers.
This commit fixes the problem by setting the default percentage value to
the model instead of the calculated one in this specific case.
- Add communication messages to Trade protobuf message to be able to
save chat messages per trade
- Add Type enum and field to DisputeCommunicationMessage protobuf to
be able to dispatch Dispute and Trade chat messages properly
- Rename some function as isClient instead of isTrader to make it easier
to understand who is who when two traders are communicating with each
other
Move session classes to core. Break out DisputeCommunicationMessage
handling from DisputeManager and put in ChatMananger prepare for other
uses of ChatManager.
Renaming of DisputeCommunicationMessage would be nice but it's
representing the protobuf messages so the name has to stay.
The naming of DisputeCommunicationMessage has to stay but they otherwise
fit what would be more aptly named ChatCommunicationMessage or something
in that spririt.
On the way to adding chat for traders this is a first step. Mainly just
moving functionality out of TraderDisputeView to Chat class. There are
still remaining dispute functionality that needs to be factored away.
After restoring from seed, the text shown under DAO /
BSQ Wallet / Transactions displays an incorrect progress - the numbers
are swapped. For example:
"Awaiting blocks... Verified 575,868 blocks out of 554,857"
Normally we get the latest block height from BitcoinJ as the
target height, and we request BSQ blocks from seed nodes up to latest
block.
But when restoring from seed, we receive the latest block height
from the seed nodes while BitcoinJ has not received all blocks yet and
is still syncing.
Fixes https://github.com/bisq-network/bisq/issues/2825
It can be that one user opened a dispute but in the meantime the other
peer sent or received the funds. Atm after a dispute has been opened the
user cannot confirm anymore. This restriction forces all cases to be
resolved in arbitration. If we relax that restriction to allow users
to still confirm after they opened a dispute we might reduce work load
for arbitrators as the payout can be done by the users if both have
confirmed. The arbitrator still need to close the case to that the
open support cases get closed, but the payout tx was already created
by the users.
