I began up Bisq as we speak. It had a pop-up (one among numerous over time…) with elaborate directions on the best way to “improve Tor v2 addresses to v3”. This concerned shutting down Bisq, deleting a dir after which beginning it again up once more.
Certain, for me, it was only a small annoyance, however what might clarify that they’ve the customers do that manually? Why not merely do it mechanically in Bisq, with out the consumer ever having to learn about it? Even having them press a “Sure” field is an excessive amount of IMO, however no less than can be acceptable. Requiring guide, complicated steps shouldn’t be.
Even for me, it was work that needed to be executed which I did not wish to do. And should not must. However I believe primarily of all of the people who find themselves not pc freaks and who’re way more prone to cease utilizing one thing than sit and attempt to soar by means of hoops on a regular basis when there are new issues that break and alter. Bisq, in spite of everything, is essential in its position because the solely non-KYC, decentralized Bitcoin change on the earth. (Severely, it’s the just one. If you do not get that, I haven’t got the time to persuade you in any other case.)
I will not even go into the truth that you must manually set up every new model as if it had been the preliminary set up of this system, however that is clearly additionally a main difficulty for the general “expertise” of utilizing Bisq.
It is troublesome to not get the sensation that that is executed on goal. As if Bitcoiners actually would favor it to not ever go mainstream, however quite stay this mysterious, esoteric and complicated factor eternally. How else can one interpret issues like this?
Are Bitcoiners against wide-spread adoption on some, probably unconscious, degree?