Bisq: peer-to-peer trading, protocol differences and local control

Bisq is locally run software for direct Bitcoin trading, with counterparties arranging the other payment themselves. It does not supply a conventional exchange account or automatic order matching.[1]

The original Bisq 1 and newer Bisq 2 belong to the same project, but their trading safeguards differ.[23]

Bisq Easy offers can remain available after a trade and be taken again until their creator closes them. Before payment details are exchanged either participant may cancel; afterwards, failure to perform can lead to a ban. Completed trades leave offers open.[3]

The inspected roadmap still describes additional Bisq 2 protocols, including MuSig-related development and other swaps, as development work. A planned protocol should not be confused with the currently documented Easy service. Bisq 1 remains relevant for its existing trades, BSQ market and DAO functions.[23]

The dedicated tariff targets a 25% BSQ discount, dependent on the BSQ/BTC rate and DAO parameters. At 0.01 BTC, the BTC maker minimum is 0.000075 and the taker charge 0.000115: combined 0.00019 BTC, or 1.9%, before mining costs.[5]

The general FAQ still displays older 0.1%/0.7% rates and a 50% BSQ discount. Those conflict with the dedicated tariff above. Treat the final client calculation as the applicable quote, rather than assuming every published introduction has the current parameters.[17][5]

Mining fees are separate. The conventional maker funds one transaction while the taker funds three, so the guide estimates roughly three times the network cost for taking. Trade size does not determine this cost. The client displays its estimate before commitment; the ordinary Send funds screen separately permits a recommended or custom mining fee.[6]

Bisq Easy charges neither side a platform trading fee. The seller pays the Bitcoin mining or Lightning routing charge for delivery. Its guide anticipates sellers adding a premium for reputation and onboarding work; that expectation is not a measured spread or a universal 10–15% quote. Compare the actual money sent with the Bitcoin received.[3]

BSQ swaps charge BSQ trading fees and Bitcoin mining costs through transaction-output deductions. The swap guide’s numerical example is illustrative rather than a current tariff. Creating these offers uses proof of work instead of the conventional maker’s fee transaction; insufficient wallet funds automatically deactivate a swap offer.[24]

Conventional Bisq 1 trading requires Bitcoin before the first trade, even for a buyer: the wallet needs enough for collateral and fees. A seller additionally funds the Bitcoin being sold. The funding guide allows an external wallet transfer or an existing local balance. Its illustrative starter amount is not a universal deposit requirement.[8]

The dedicated deposit page says the maker sets 15–50% and the taker matches it, with a 0.001 BTC absolute minimum. The funding guide instead describes the seller’s percentage as fixed at 15%. That inconsistency should be resolved against the current offer’s deposit display. A range offer’s deposit is calculated from its maximum amount, not necessarily the smaller amount eventually traded.[7][8]

These are trade deadlines and method ceilings, not guaranteed bank settlement times. The payment-method page is explicitly about Bisq 1; it should not be used as a universal list of Easy limits. External transfer-provider charges and restrictions remain relevant.[10]

For fiat methods subject to signing, an unsigned buyer is limited to 0.002 BTC. Thirty days after signing, the allowance rises to half the method limit, reaching the full limit after 60 days; merely waiting after account creation does not substitute for signing. Selling is treated differently. The account-limit guide also gives an altcoin ceiling of 0.25 BTC, reduced from 0.5, and an optional 0.1 BTC novice cap. Version and emergency filters can impose tighter limits.[11]

Payment details must match the trade contract, including account-holder data. After the deposit transaction is published, terms cannot simply be changed. If a bank blocks the agreed route, propose an alternative through the trade conversation or mediation; the other party need not accept it. Buyers bear outgoing payment charges, while sellers bear charges imposed by their receiving institution.[12]

BTC and BSQ use the same wallet seed, but they are not interchangeable balances. The wallet guide warns that handling BSQ through an ordinary Bitcoin wallet can destroy its coloured-coin status. Exporting a seed is therefore not a substitute for restoring the application’s trade, key and wallet state correctly.[9]

On 1 May 2026, an input-validation flaw affected active Bisq 1 altcoin trades. The project’s post-mortem reports ten victims and 11.59104 BTC lost; it says fiat trades, Bisq Easy and idle wallets were outside the affected scope. Contributors halted trading through a mandatory-version mechanism and issued mitigation releases. Initial restrictions included a smaller trade cap and disabled XMR auto-confirmation; those dated measures are not presented here as permanent current parameters.[18]

The June update records reimbursement on 5 June, while its detailed accounting says one affected trader had not yet submitted a request. Refund Angels supplied 10.98538295 BTC alongside ordinary reimbursement arrangements. This was an incident response financed by contributors and DAO processes, not evidence of an insured deposit guarantee or unconditional coverage of future losses.[19]

Bisq 1.10.9, dated 1 October, is described as a required security update for continued trading. It includes Tor and validation changes, and waits for network bootstrap before republishing offers. Current releases matter operationally even when an older installation still launches.[20]

Bisq 2.1.14, released 15 October, warns that logs from 2.1.3–2.1.13 contain onion identity keys, and API-enabled nodes also logged profile keys. Its first run redacts local logs, not previously shared copies or external backups. The release requires updating to continue trading now; separately, 2.1.14 or later is required before 25 November 2026 for new storage signatures.[21]

Bisq does not require a centrally verified account to access its peer network. This does not make a bank transfer anonymous: the counterparty sees the relevant payment information, and the payment provider applies its own account controls. Software accessibility is separate from whether a particular transaction is lawful or permitted by that provider.[17]

Easy’s dedicated reputation guide sets system limits at US$6–600 equivalent, with a seller’s permitted size further limited by reputation. It says the old selectable minimum reputation score was removed in version 2.1.1; older instructions quoting a universal 30,000-point minimum should not be treated as the current rule. Stars are relative rankings among active sellers, not an assurance that funds will be returned.[4]

The inspected project material does not supply a conventional licensed-entity eligibility schedule covering every country or client category. Readers should establish the applicable legal and payment-account position for their own location; the absence of central onboarding is not a worldwide permission statement.[1]

The delayed payout sends escrow funds to the protocol’s Burning Men recipients, not directly to the complaining trader. The resulting arbitration claim is therefore a different recovery path from the normal jointly signed payout.[13]

Official technical support directs users to Matrix, with GitHub for reproducible software issues. Community channels do not establish an authorised telephone execution desk or an unconditional response guarantee. The support page warns against unsolicited private messages and anyone asking for wallet seeds or private keys.[14]

If a Payment started confirmation fails to propagate, the FAQ suggests communication, reconnecting and mediation if the deadline approaches. A messaging failure is not an instruction to send the fiat payment again. Preserve the payment receipt and trade context while resolving the software state.[17]

Easy offers mediation through the trade conversation and can escalate serious breaches for a profile ban. With no funded trade escrow, the mediator cannot release locked collateral to repair non-delivery. Its rules require traders to return online at least daily when settlement is delayed.[3]

Bisq describes itself as software, a peer network and a DAO, rather than a company operating a client-money account. No current regulator-issued exchange permission for a single Bisq operating entity was established in the inspected material. No regulatory identifier is assigned on that basis.[1]

The May halt also demonstrates a practical governance boundary: trusted contributors can distribute emergency version restrictions. Decentralised networking and user-held keys do not mean that software releases, filtering decisions and dispute personnel have no influence over trading availability.[18]

The original mainnet application began in April 2016 under the earlier Bitsquare identity. Bisq 2 is a separately developed successor within the same contributor-led project, not a second unrelated exchange operator.[23]

The project uses AGPL open-source licensing and DAO governance. A verified current user count or comparable exchange-wide trading-volume measure was not established for this profile.[1]

The June financial update describes reimbursement obligations as a material burden on the DAO and discusses proposed future fee allocations. It explicitly says its fee proposals were not yet final. Those governance scenarios should not be substituted for the current published trading tariff or advertised as contractual returns to ordinary traders.[19]

Operator

Open-source contributor project and Bisq DAO; no incorporated operator identified.

Exchange model

Decentralised

Service scope

Peer-to-peer Bitcoin trading across distinct Bisq 1 and Bisq Easy protocols.

Client types

Retail clients

Pricing publication

Public pricing

Other names

Bitsquare; Bisq 1; Bisq 2; Bisq Easy; Bisq Easy Mobile; Bisq Connect; Bisq DAO

Funding scope

External peer payments; Bisq 1 requires BTC deposits and fees.

Custody and asset handling

Local wallet keys; Bisq 1 multisignature escrow; Easy reputation-based settlement.

Client eligibility

No central KYC; payment-account and local legal requirements remain relevant.

Support

Community technical support and protocol-specific dispute procedures.

Authorisation and registration scope

No matched operating-entity exchange permission established.

Exchange metadata checked 20 Oct 2026Source 1Source 2Source 3Source 4Source 5Source 6Source 7Source 8Source 9Source 10Source 11Source 12Source 13Source 14Source 15Source 16Source 17Source 18Source 19Source 20Source 21Source 22Source 23Source 24Source 25

Bisq 1 backups must preserve the application data directory, including trade and dispute state. Wallet password protection does not encrypt every backup file. Payment-account exports alone omit the signature key needed to preserve signing history. Trade history and wallet transactions have separate CSV exports; these records are not a jurisdiction-specific tax calculation and cannot simply be imported as a full application restore.[15]

Restoration can move data between supported desktop systems, but the guide warns against operating the same data directory on two computers, even alternately. A key-only repair during active offers or disputes can make the original identity unreachable. There is no central custodian password reset that recreates missing local trade data.[16]

The October Bisq 2 release adds Easy trade-history CSV export, connected-device listing and revocation, and session expiry. It also removes private-key disclosure from APIs for existing identities. These are version-specific capabilities; the earlier mobile announcement alone does not establish every current control.[21]

Easy sellers can build reputation through burning or bonding BSQ and importing eligible Bisq 1 account history. Burned tokens are spent permanently; bonded reputation disappears when the bond unlocks, and serious misconduct can lead to confiscation. Two weeks of inactivity temporarily removes a profile from relative ranking, with ranking restored on return. This is different from a cash inactivity charge.[4]

The Bisq 1 gRPC daemon exposes balances, BTC/BSQ transfers, payment accounts, offers and trade actions. Requests authenticate with an API password, so access can carry transaction authority rather than merely reading prices. The documentation warns against running the daemon and desktop application simultaneously against the same default wallet and ports. Its demonstration bots do not confer a managed-account mandate or guarantee trading outcomes.[25]

The May incident report describes AI-assisted internal security review. It does not establish a customer-facing AI adviser or authority to place discretionary trades. External automation remains distinct from the project’s code-review process.[18]