Summary
Peer-to-peer acquisition replaces an exchange account with a trade against another person. The security mechanism then matters: multisig escrow, a Lightning coordinator and seller reputation put different parties in control. A platform's lack of identity verification does not make the fiat payment anonymous.
Here, KYC means the platform's identity-verification process. A bank, payment provider, trading counterparty or dispute handler may still learn identifying information. The comparison separates that question from control of the bitcoin.
Fiat-to-bitcoin routes
| Route | Custody and dispute trust | Platform identity checks | Privacy and fiat rails | Readiness |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bisq multisig | Two-of-two trader escrow plus security deposits; mediation and separate arbitration/reimbursement | No registration or centralized identity verification | Tor; agreed bank or other external payment method, including face-to-face cash; payment details and dispute evidence can identify traders | Usable; needs initial bitcoin for deposits and fees |
| Bisq Easy in Bisq 2 | Seller reputation, rather than the multisig protocol's escrow | Evaluate the chosen trade and payment rail; reputation does not make payment details anonymous | Chat-based acquisition for buyers without initial bitcoin; fiat still moves between traders | Usable; explicitly depends on seller trust |
| RoboSats | Coordinator controls hold-invoice settlement and disputes; brief custody during payout | Temporary robot identity without email or phone registration | Tor and encrypted chat; direct fiat payment outside Lightning can reveal identity | Usable; requires suitable Lightning handling and coordinator liquidity |
| Hodl Hodl, on-chain trades | Two-of-three escrow keys belong to buyer, seller and Hodl Hodl; the service co-signs releases and handles disputes | Advertises no identity verification; email account required | Counterparties agree the payment method; the website and payment rail remain in the trust model | Usable hosted marketplace; depends on its service and dispute handling |
| Peach | Seller and Peach initially co-sign escrow; a delayed recovery path gives Peach control if the trade remains unresolved | No-ID onboarding within ordinary limits; high-volume sellers have a verification process | Counterparty receives payment details; Peach documents data retained and disclosure to its mediator in a dispute | Usable app; check current availability and limits for the intended location and payment method |
These ratings concern working software and documented workflows. They do not establish that a matching offer exists for a particular currency, amount or payment method.
How the trust models differ
Escrow is not a uniform guarantee. Bisq's multisig trades require both traders' signatures; its mediator cannot release the escrow alone. Hodl Hodl holds one key in a two-of-three arrangement and normally co-signs with a trader. Peach's trading FAQ describes initial seller-and-Peach control and a timelocked recovery route that later gives Peach control. Those are materially different powers.
A coordinator federation is not shared escrow. RoboSats combines listings from multiple coordinators, but the selected coordinator runs the trade and its dispute process. It does not split custody for each trade among the other coordinators.
Private chat does not erase payment records. Peach's privacy FAQ describes end-to-end encryption for ordinary trade payment details, hashes and trade metadata retained on its servers, and disclosure of chat and payment details to the assigned mediator during a dispute. Instant-trade offers additionally share payment details with Peach. Evaluate the actual trade flow, not a blanket claim of anonymity.
Where atomic swaps fit
Atomic swaps exchange one cryptocurrency for another. In the Monero project's explanation, the protocol makes the exchange complete for both sides or leaves each side with its original funds, without a trusted exchange custodian. That property covers the cryptocurrency exchange, not a bank transfer.
For Bitcoin–Monero swaps, eigenwallet's repository provides the maintained software and interface. The existing Monero entry places swaps among its acquisition options. This route requires cryptocurrency to start with; it is not a first purchase from fiat. Swap direction, available counterparties, software and recovery paths must be checked for the implementation being used. Treat it as a more involved route than a fiat marketplace, not a guarantee of anonymity or a substitute for a fiat rail.
Readiness and choosing a route
Usable, with different trust boundaries. Start by checking the payment method you can actually use and the information it exposes. Then decide whether you accept a coordinator, a service holding an escrow key, a reputation-based seller, or the operational demands of the multisig protocol.
Before sending fiat, verify that the required escrow step has completed. Keep the trade token or recovery data until settlement and any dispute are finished. The trade is only one part of the setup: continue with Bitcoin self-custody and consider Silent Payments and CoinJoin for different aspects of on-chain privacy.
Primary sources
- Bisq: Tor, escrow and identity-verification model.
- Bisq: trading rules and dispute evidence.
- Bisq 2: Bisq Easy's reputation model.
- RoboSats: privacy and temporary identities.
- RoboSats: hold invoices and coordinator custody.
- RoboSats: coordinator federation.
- Hodl Hodl: account and identity-verification policy.
- Hodl Hodl: escrow keys, payment methods and disputes.
- Peach: onboarding, wallet and availability.
- Peach: escrow recovery and seller verification.
- Peach: payment-data privacy and dispute disclosure.
- Monero project: atomic swap mechanism.
- eigenwallet: Bitcoin–Monero swap software.
Also in Anonymity Networks
Page history
- Updated
- 2026-10-25
- Origin
- Written for ungovernable.tech.
- Improve this page
- Suggest an edit — issues and pull requests are welcome.