[ANN] Bridgoro Exchange - Participate in Beta Test and Earn up to 350 USDT

[LoyceV]

Can OP (or anyone else) create some small BTC <> XMR offers? I'm low on test coins for both, but $15 or so should still work.

So far, I haven't been able to complete a single trade, and that's kinda disappointing.

[Bridgoro]

Can OP (or anyone else) create some small BTC <> XMR offers? I'm low on test coins for both, but $15 or so should still work.

So far, I haven't been able to complete a single trade, and that's kinda disappointing.

We accepted two available offers (not created by us) with the following pairs: XMR -> BTC and BTC -> XMR - hopefully those were yours.

In addition, we've also created two new Exchange Offers with the same pairs (XMR -> BTC / BTC -> XMR) as per your request.
One offer is already active, and the second one is partially confirmed and will be available soon.

[UmerIdrees]

Sometimes we see users asking questions already clearly answered in the ANN or GitBook.
We kindly ask everyone to spend a few minutes reading the provided materials before posting questions, as it helps reduce confusion and repetitive answers.

You may expect people to read the ANN but we can't force them and still many wouldn't and will still ask the same questions again. But then you shouldn't hesitate to answer the repeated questions again as there are audience members who haven't read the old conversations and that may be beneficial for them.

[Hamza2424]

People might trade large amount because they trade big coins, but if the exchange list so many coins and tokens, people will choose to trade small because they only want to hold in small amount since the coins/tokens are still new.

If Bridgoro can list so many coins/tokens like swap platform, they would able to compete with other exchanges because the main problem of no KYC P2P/DEX due to lack of coins/tokens listed.

They cannot increase their token list just like that. They are in beta and already fixing problems daily and until they make is smooth which it is getting daily because I read their bug report, they have cleared 18 issues, 6 under progress and 5 under investigation. They did a great job and if they increase their token list now it can create problems but these tokens are enough it is not a trading platform just like any exchange and it is also not a swap just like any other.

This is a p2p exchange and they grow slowly, you can see the support of new coins on their roadmap and Bridgoro is already on schedule. They will be competing due to their system and security. Every exchange has its features that make it unique from others and this one has many.

[Bridgoro]

Can OP (or anyone else) create some small BTC <> XMR offers? I'm low on test coins for both, but $15 or so should still work.
So far, I haven't been able to complete a single trade, and that's kinda disappointing.

Please let us know once you have time to accept our offers and complete the transactions.
Your feedback on BTC/XMR is especially valuable, as these are the two main assets of our project.

You may expect people to read the ANN but we can't force them and still many wouldn't and will still ask the same questions again. But then you shouldn't hesitate to answer the repeated questions again as there are audience members who haven't read the old conversations and that may be beneficial for them.

Sure, we will do our best.
Bitcointalk can be time-consuming, but it's part of our job right now since this is our project and we are the ones who started the thread.
Thanks a lot for your support, it really motivates us.

They cannot increase their token list just like that. They are in beta and already fixing problems daily and until they make is smooth which it is getting daily because I read their bug report, they have cleared 18 issues, 6 under progress and 5 under investigation. They did a great job and if they increase their token list now it can create problems but these tokens are enough it is not a trading platform just like any exchange and it is also not a swap just like any other.
This is a p2p exchange and they grow slowly, you can see the support of new coins on their roadmap and Bridgoro is already on schedule. They will be competing due to their system and security. Every exchange has its features that make it unique from others and this one has many.

Thanks for helping us answer users’ questions.
You are absolutely right, new coins will only be added after the final release.

We are also planning to launch let's say, a Coin List Vote, so the community can decide which assets should be added next.

[hugeblack]

I spent some time reading ---> https://bridgoro.gitbook.io/bridgoro-docs/system-architecture/how-do-buffer-wallets-work

There's a general explanation of how the system works, but there's no explanation of how Buffer Wallets work.




For example, here's one explanation:

At the protocol level, the escrow continuously monitors the blockchain for required confirmations and conditional triggers.

So, at the protocol level, how can an XMR wallet and ETH communicate? Or will the Buffer Wallet code be open source, so we can see what's going on?

The last time I heard of something similar, it was Mixin Safe: A Convenient and Decentralized Multisig + MPC + Timelock solution Which was hacked 

for more read ----> https://mixin.network/923/

The primary cause of the incident was the hacker's penetration into the Google Cloud Services relied upon by Mixin for withdrawals, exploiting a software vulnerability to construct a large number of unauthorized withdrawal requests.

[dkbit98]

Bridgoro I still can't access and login to my account because of User not assigned error.
I have some testnet bitcoin and I wanted to continue testing but this is mission impossible.
Should I try creating yet another account or what?

So far, I haven't been able to complete a single trade, and that's kinda disappointing.

At least you were able to login to your account, unlike me 

[ContentWriter]

Bridgoro I still can't access and login to my account because of User not assigned error.
I have some testnet bitcoin and I wanted to continue testing but this is mission impossible.
Should I try creating yet another account or what?

So far, I haven't been able to complete a single trade, and that's kinda disappointing.

At least you were able to login to your account, unlike me 

This is surprising since you're the only person still complaining about this. I believe login issues have been fixed by the team. It shouldn't be a browser issue since the platform is now working reasonably well on all browsers I've checked with. Try clearing your cache and trying again. Anyway, let's hear from the OP first. They're doing a great job of addressing issues.

[Bridgoro]

I spent some time reading ---> https://bridgoro.gitbook.io/bridgoro-docs/system-architecture/how-do-buffer-wallets-work
There's a general explanation of how the system works, but there's no explanation of how Buffer Wallets work.
For example, here's one explanation:

At the protocol level, the escrow continuously monitors the blockchain for required confirmations and conditional triggers.

So, at the protocol level, how can an XMR wallet and ETH communicate? Or will the Buffer Wallet code be open source, so we can see what's going on?
The last time I heard of something similar, it was Mixin Safe: A Convenient and Decentralized Multisig + MPC + Timelock solution Which was hacked 
for more read ----> https://mixin.network/923/

The primary cause of the incident was the hacker's penetration into the Google Cloud Services relied upon by Mixin for withdrawals, exploiting a software vulnerability to construct a large number of unauthorized withdrawal requests.

I would like to clarify an important point before this goes too far.
First of all, this isn't a protocol. Building a full-fledged protocol would take more than a year, and that's not what we are doing right now. It was my mistake to write "protocol" in the GitBook docs, not a typo, but more of a semantic error due to crunch time. I've already corrected it, and now it reads:

"At the backend level, the escrow system continuously monitors the blockchain for required confirmations and conditional triggers."

As we've said before, the detailed Whitepaper will be published after the Beta Test ends.
We can't release it yet because we need to carefully check for sensitive information that could expose users to risks.
The Whitepaper will definitely be available for everyone before the final launch when all blockchains go live on the mainnet.

Regarding your question about XMR and ETH:
These cryptocurrencies don't interact at the protocol level but through backend services.
You will find full details in the Whitepaper later on.

About the news of a hack in another project: our architecture is very different from Mixin Safe.
And to be honest, there's no such thing as 100% security.
Even the largest exchanges with multi-million-dollar security budgets get hacked sometimes.
That's why:

• We never store user funds on our side.
• Funds only stay temporarily in buffer wallets during exchanges.
• We will also limit maximum one-time exchanges, so even in the worst-case scenario, the loss would be small, and we could cover it ourselves.

Thanks for raising this point.
I hope this clears things up.

Bridgoro I still can't access and login to my account because of User not assigned error.
I have some testnet bitcoin and I wanted to continue testing but this is mission impossible.
Should I try creating yet another account or what?

We are sorry to hear about this issue.
The reason you are seeing the "User not assigned" error is that your account wasn't fully verified in the system.
This likely happened if you tried to register while the server was undergoing a maintenance update, and your browser cached the incomplete process.

Please try the following steps:
1. Clear your browser cache.
2. Register again using the same email.
3. Enter the 6-digit code on the Confirm Registration popup.
4. Log in again.

Let us know if these steps solve the problem.

This is surprising since you're the only person still complaining about this. I believe login issues have been fixed by the team. It shouldn't be a browser issue since the platform is now working reasonably well on all browsers I've checked with. Try clearing your cache and trying again. Anyway, let's hear from the OP first. They're doing a great job of addressing issues.

Thank you for testing and reporting this bug.
Such login issues may occur with previously created accounts if the browser cache hasn't been cleared.

So even with $100 in BTC, the 260 sat is under the on-chain dust limit. And if it would reach the 294 sat limit, the dust is almost worthless for you to spend.
Suggestion: don't charge the service fee on small transactions.

So, after discussing it with my teammate, we decided to introduce fee-free exchanges for small amounts. The exact threshold for what counts as a "small amount" will be determined once we finish analyzing Dust Transactions and Dead Wallet amounts.
Yeah, the work is ongoing in parallel with fixing the current incoming bug reports.

Now here's a tricky question I'd like to hear your thoughts on:
What if we made all exchanges completely fee-free, regardless of the amount, meaning our exchange wouldn't take anything from users?

The challenge, of course, is monetization.
We would still need to cover server costs and sustain our own work.
As you know, projects built purely on enthusiasm are hard to support long-term without a funding model.

So what do you think: Should we aim for 100% fee-free exchanges by finding a sustainable way to monetize without relying on a service fee?
Or would it be smarter to balance sustainability with user comfort by introducing a service fee to cover infrastructure and ongoing costs?

[dkbit98]

We are sorry to hear about this issue.
The reason you are seeing the "User not assigned" error is that your account wasn't fully verified in the system.
This likely happened if you tried to register while the server was undergoing a maintenance update, and your browser cached the incomplete process.

Please try the following steps:
1. Clear your browser cache.
2. Register again using the same email.
3. Enter the 6-digit code on the Confirm Registration popup.
4. Log in again.

Let us know if these steps solve the problem.

Yes, this solved the problem and I was finally able to login to my account.
But registering new accounts with same email address should not be allowed in future, this could be a big security issue for Bridgoro.
I will continue testing exchange to see how everything works and I will post my feedback later, after I get some testnet wallets for other coins.

[Bridgoro]

Yes, this solved the problem and I was finally able to login to my account.
But registering new accounts with same email address should not be allowed in future, this could be a big security issue for Bridgoro.
I will continue testing exchange to see how everything works and I will post my feedback later, after I get some testnet wallets for other coins.

This wasn't a new account issue.
Your first registration attempt was interrupted and not recorded in the system, which is why you received the "User not assigned" message.
When you retried, the registration was completed correctly, and your account was properly recorded in the system.
Now that your account is fully registered and recorded in the system so you can't create a new account using this same email.

[LoyceV]

So even with $100 in BTC, the 260 sat is under the on-chain dust limit. And if it would reach the 294 sat limit, the dust is almost worthless for you to spend.
Suggestion: don't charge the service fee on small transactions.

So, after discussing it with my teammate, we decided to introduce fee-free exchanges for small amounts. The exact threshold for what counts as a "small amount" will be determined once we finish analyzing Dust Transactions and Dead Wallet amounts.

It could even be different per coin: a low-fee altcoin can have a lower fee-free amount than Bitcoin when transaction fees shoot up. This comes to mind:

maybe we need to charge negative fees to incentivize XMR-> exchanges  

Monero prices and shortages were discussed a few times in eXch's thread. Eventually they charged 5% to buy Monero, and 0.5% to sell it. They used the Monero price from centralized exchanges as base, and it looks like supply and demand aren't in equilibrium at those prices. My guess: people don't withdraw from centralized exchanges, as it makes no sense to expect privacy there anyway. So it would be interesting to see negative fees for selling. Maybe start with a small negative, combined with a small increase in fees for buyers.

Now here's a tricky question I'd like to hear your thoughts on:
What if we made all exchanges completely fee-free, regardless of the amount, meaning our exchange wouldn't take anything from users?

If a service makes a sustainable profit, the owner has something to lose by being dishonest. A service that doesn't earn anything may make selective scamming or exit scamming an attractive option. I'm not saying that's what you'll do, I'm saying I can't know for sure, so I trust someone who has something to lose more than someone who doesn't have anything to lose.

The challenge, of course, is monetization.
We would still need to cover server costs and sustain our own work.
As you know, projects built purely on enthusiasm are hard to support long-term without a funding model.

So what do you think: Should we aim for 100% fee-free exchanges by finding a sustainable way to monetize without relying on a service fee?

For reasons explained above: no.

Or would it be smarter to balance sustainability with user comfort by introducing a service fee to cover infrastructure and ongoing costs?

I wouldn't use an exchange if I have to pay a (monthly) service fee just to use it.

[examplens]

Our platform uses CoinMarketCap rates directly, without adding any extra percentage on top, ensuring users always trade at fair market prices.

Well, the development of the platform is going at a surprisingly good speed.

If I may suggest, in the table with active offers, it would be really useful to see the current exchange/price rate per CMC (or which service is considered adequate). So, for example, in order to check how much is realistically offered for 0.00013327 BTC to XMR, I have to open CMC and possibly a calculator to get the precise amount. If there are several offers at some point, it can be tiring to check for each one.

Given that you are already using the CMC API, and if I correctly recognized Tradingview as well, I assume that it does not require too much work to implement.

[LoyceV]

If there are several offers at some point, it can be tiring to check for each one.

That's what the Price Margin percentage is for. Which reminds me: it would be nice to be able to sort a column by clicking it's header.

[Faisal2202]

We are also planning to launch let's say, a Coin List Vote, so the community can decide which assets should be added next.

That is a good idea and verified users can vote for any coin they want to see on the platform, this will make this platform very unique from many competitors and everyone can help shape a better platform.

The challenge, of course, is monetization.
We would still need to cover server costs and sustain our own work.
As you know, projects built purely on enthusiasm are hard to support long-term without a funding model.

So what do you think: Should we aim for 100% fee-free exchanges by finding a sustainable way to monetize without relying on a service fee?
Or would it be smarter to balance sustainability with user comfort by introducing a service fee to cover infrastructure and ongoing costs?

What if you will not find any sponsors, that will be a life time problem for the platform, I will suggest you should add service fee and don't even remove the fee for small amounts that trigger dust type problems, I will say solve them, get fee, and sponsors both, because you guys are doing hard work, what if that sponsor will not be enough. Of course, it’s your decision, and I’ll respect whatever you choose. Going fully fee-free would be a noble contribution to the crypto world

Infrastructure and other costs should be covered by the fee structure, no fee structure can be a bad thing, it will then be considered a contribution to the crypto world. It can be the next big thing like many open source contributions happened till now and they have survived till now, so you can also but I think fee structure is better.

[Hamza2424]

Example of a Dust Transaction.
Here's a real case we faced:
A user sent $10 in BTC, which was about 0.00008955 BTC.
A 0.3% Service Fee was applied, equal to 0.00000026 BTC.
Since it's impossible to send 26 satoshis (the transaction wouldn't even be processed), the transaction got stuck.
This is exactly why dust transactions are an issue and why careful value tuning is necessary.

Thanks for explaining it with real example as I understand the issue much better now. The main problem here is just one now I think and it can be a major problem because it is the issue from the blockchain side. It makes sense now, and if the fee is raised above the dust threshold, it will be expensive.

What are the possible solutions to this? Can't you change the type of currency to get the service fee to a blockchain where such issue won't occur? Or can't you make multiple transactions to the same buffer wallet and when it will have enough satoshi from all the dust left by all the other trades, you could move them?

[examplens]

That's what the Price Margin percentage is for. Which reminds me: it would be nice to be able to sort a column by clicking it's header.

Too often, I have seen discrepancies when something is expressed in percentages.

What are the possible solutions to this? Can't you change the type of currency to get the service fee to a blockchain where such issue won't occur? Or can't you make multiple transactions to the same buffer wallet and when it will have enough satoshi from all the dust left by all the other trades, you could move them?

Probably the best solution is to set a minimum fixed fee, for example, 0.000005 BTC per transaction

[Hamza2424]

Thanks for helping us answer users’ questions.
You are absolutely right, new coins will only be added after the final release.

We are also planning to launch let's say, a Coin List Vote, so the community can decide which assets should be added next.

I like the idea of a coin list vote and planning this after the release is better it can generate fresh problems if a new list is made now and integrated. Voting will allow the community to participate in making a better future, they will feel more connected to the project and help prioritize the most demanded coins.

Overall, I think you're moving in the right direction and don't need to thanks, team I was contributing and reading some posts and made a reply.

Probably the best solution is to set a minimum fixed fee, for example, 0.000005 BTC per transaction

Yep, this can be the best solution, they can set the minimum fee for BTC deals in BTC not in percentage.

[Bridgoro]

It could even be different per coin: a low-fee altcoin can have a lower fee-free amount than Bitcoin when transaction fees shoot up.

We will review fee-free minimum exchange amounts for different pairs.
Fortunately, we still have plenty of time to calculate this since the first 6 months will be fee-free for all any exchange amount.

This comes to mind:

maybe we need to charge negative fees to incentivize XMR-> exchanges  

Monero prices and shortages were discussed a few times in eXch's thread. Eventually they charged 5% to buy Monero, and 0.5% to sell it. They used the Monero price from centralized exchanges as base, and it looks like supply and demand aren't in equilibrium at those prices. My guess: people don't withdraw from centralized exchanges, as it makes no sense to expect privacy there anyway. So it would be interesting to see negative fees for selling. Maybe start with a small negative, combined with a small increase in fees for buyers.

Thanks for the idea, we will add it to our discussion list with my teammate.

If a service makes a sustainable profit, the owner has something to lose by being dishonest. A service that doesn't earn anything may make selective scamming or exit scamming an attractive option. I'm not saying that's what you'll do, I'm saying I can't know for sure, so I trust someone who has something to lose more than someone who doesn't have anything to lose.

Totally agree with you.
From our perspective, the first 6 months of fee-free exchanges are about building a core community.
After that, if we don't find a better solution, the service fee will be applicable for each exchange operation.

For reasons explained above: no.

Thanks for your feedback.

I wouldn't use an exchange if I have to pay a (monthly) service fee just to use it.

No worries, we are old-school and not fans of the subscription model.
Once again, there will be no subscription model.

Well, the development of the platform is going at a surprisingly good speed.
If I may suggest, in the table with active offers, it would be really useful to see the current exchange/price rate per CMC (or which service is considered adequate). So, for example, in order to check how much is realistically offered for 0.00013327 BTC to XMR, I have to open CMC and possibly a calculator to get the precise amount. If there are several offers at some point, it can be tiring to check for each one.
Given that you are already using the CMC API, and if I correctly recognized Tradingview as well, I assume that it does not require too much work to implement.

There is no need for concern here, as all prices are taken directly from CoinMarketCap (CMC) and we don't add any extra %.
You can verify this yourself by checking any exchange offer and doing the calculation.

However, please pay attention to the Price Margin value.
Price Margin is the difference between the market price of the cryptoasset and the added price of the seller.
0% -> equal to the CMC market price
-0.1% or lower -> cheaper than the market price
+0.1% or higher -> above the market price

That's what the Price Margin percentage is for. Which reminds me: it would be nice to be able to sort a column by clicking it's header.

Good idea!
We will definitely add this UX improvement in a future update.

That is a good idea and verified users can vote for any coin they want to see on the platform, this will make this platform very unique from many competitors and everyone can help shape a better platform.

Please keep in mind that only Level 3 accounts and higher will be able to participate in voting.
This is to prevent spam voting from newly created accounts and ensure that only real, active Bridgoro users have a voice in the decision-making process.

What if you will not find any sponsors, that will be a life time problem for the platform, I will suggest you should add service fee and don't even remove the fee for small amounts that trigger dust type problems, I will say solve them, get fee, and sponsors both, because you guys are doing hard work, what if that sponsor will not be enough. Of course, it’s your decision, and I’ll respect whatever you choose. Going fully fee-free would be a noble contribution to the crypto world
Infrastructure and other costs should be covered by the fee structure, no fee structure can be a bad thing, it will then be considered a contribution to the crypto world. It can be the next big thing like many open source contributions happened till now and they have survived till now, so you can also but I think fee structure is better.

Don't worry, we aren't looking for any general sponsorships, as we want to stay fully independent in all aspects.
In the future, we may consider something like marketing sponsorships or integrations, but it's too early to focus on that now. At this stage, our main priority is building a community.
We also understand how projects succeed: the community's voice is important. That's why all ideas will be discussed with our active users (high-level accounts on Bridgoro).
And if we don't come up with a sustainable monetization model, then of course, the service fee will be applied to every trade.

Thanks for explaining it with real example as I understand the issue much better now. The main problem here is just one now I think and it can be a major problem because it is the issue from the blockchain side. It makes sense now, and if the fee is raised above the dust threshold, it will be expensive.
What are the possible solutions to this? Can't you change the type of currency to get the service fee to a blockchain where such issue won't occur? Or can't you make multiple transactions to the same buffer wallet and when it will have enough satoshi from all the dust left by all the other trades, you could move them?

We already have a solution, thanks to one of the Bitcointalk members (LoyceV).
We will be making small exchange offers fee-free. The exact threshold for what counts as a "small amount" will be decided once we complete our research and calculations on Dust Transactions and Dead Wallet Amounts.

Too often, I have seen discrepancies when something is expressed in percentages.

In this case, we recommend using this cheat sheet as a quick reference.
0% -> good deal (market price)
-0.1% or lower -> very good deal
+0.1% or higher -> bad deal

Too often, I have seen discrepancies when something is expressed in percentages.
Probably the best solution is to set a minimum fixed fee, for example, 0.000005 BTC per transaction

Nah, we believe that making small-amount exchange offers fee-free is the better approach. It's also our way of showing gratitude to the community.

[hugeblack]

I would like to clarify an important point before this goes too far.
<snip>

I'd be happy to read it. Frankly, the success of P2P cryptocurrency is easier if transactions can be conducted from a central pool managed by the service (With the possibility of choosing other pools to ensure a kind of decentralization).

In general, liquidity and trust are key to the success of such services.