4 ms·

> These can't happen on Bitcoin but they already exist on Ethereum and DeFi. All possible in a trustless way. In reality, just about every DeFi platform is not

by monokh 6y ago

> These can't happen on Bitcoin but they already exist on Ethereum and DeFi. All possible in a trustless way. In reality, just about every DeFi platform is not trustless nor are the usecases possible in a trustless way. Uniswap is one exception that comes to mind. The parallel is that you can have the existing financial systems replicated on Bitcoin, Ethereum, with some additional properties and tradeoffs. I don't think you could make that kind of comparison with ham radio?

Sargos 6y ago
>In reality, just about every DeFi platform is not trustless nor are the usecases possible in a trustless way While this is true in these early days where developers need the ability to upgrade contracts and quickly fix bugs it is not the long term state of these projects and all of the major ones have defined paths to full decentralization. It's important to note that even today all of these services are non-custodial which is already a huge step up from the status quo. The amount of centralization is also variable with some projects able to upgrade certain portions of their systems but not all of it and other projects simply having an emergency kill switch they can use in case of a critical bug but can't actually change the contract. It's definitely not perfect right now but it's already better than traditional systems with things becoming more trustless over time. Eventually these services will be as fixed as Uniswap/Balancer/etc as things get more stable.
- monokh 6y ago
  "The path to decentralisation" for these projects are usually very primitive and don't actually arrive at the broad claims. Too often it's just putting wall paper over the hole in the wall. A DAO it self doesn't bring you decentralisation, the hardest problem is how you determine the members of the DAO. With how this is being played (tokens) you arrive at oligarchy or a federation, not decentralisation. The developers know this. That's why you don't see anything but baby steps forward with regards to decreasing their power over the protocols. Ditto on the non custodial claims, I can count on one hand the amount of times I've seen this term used to describe a product and for it to actually be the case.
  - hanniabu 6y ago
    Since you guys seem to know your stuff and can see past all the marketing bullshit meant to intentionally mislead people, you might be interested in Blocknet and Block DX (DEX powered by Blocknet). Unlike Uniswap which is Ethereum/account based, Block DX is UTXO based (ETH integration in the works) with every component decentralize. Non-custodial, order books are p2p, order matching is p2p, and verifications are performed locally, and settlement via atomic swaps. Trades are also extremely fast (3-10s) with trade times independent of block times. Also in regards to Blocknet as a whole, they also offer decentralize oracles. Anyway, I'll stop here because I think I may be coming off as a shill, but I just figured you'd enjoy taking a peak since you could appreciate what they're doing for the ecosystem.

by monokh 6y ago

Sargos 6y ago

>In reality, just about every DeFi platform is not trustless nor are the usecases possible in a trustless way While this is true in these early days where developers need the ability to upgrade contracts and quickly fix bugs it is not the long term state of these projects and all of the major ones have defined paths to full decentralization. It's important to note that even today all of these services are non-custodial which is already a huge step up from the status quo. The amount of centralization is also variable with some projects able to upgrade certain portions of their systems but not all of it and other projects simply having an emergency kill switch they can use in case of a critical bug but can't actually change the contract. It's definitely not perfect right now but it's already better than traditional systems with things becoming more trustless over time. Eventually these services will be as fixed as Uniswap/Balancer/etc as things get more stable.

monokh 6y ago
"The path to decentralisation" for these projects are usually very primitive and don't actually arrive at the broad claims. Too often it's just putting wall paper over the hole in the wall. A DAO it self doesn't bring you decentralisation, the hardest problem is how you determine the members of the DAO. With how this is being played (tokens) you arrive at oligarchy or a federation, not decentralisation. The developers know this. That's why you don't see anything but baby steps forward with regards to decreasing their power over the protocols. Ditto on the non custodial claims, I can count on one hand the amount of times I've seen this term used to describe a product and for it to actually be the case.
- hanniabu 6y ago
  Since you guys seem to know your stuff and can see past all the marketing bullshit meant to intentionally mislead people, you might be interested in Blocknet and Block DX (DEX powered by Blocknet). Unlike Uniswap which is Ethereum/account based, Block DX is UTXO based (ETH integration in the works) with every component decentralize. Non-custodial, order books are p2p, order matching is p2p, and verifications are performed locally, and settlement via atomic swaps. Trades are also extremely fast (3-10s) with trade times independent of block times. Also in regards to Blocknet as a whole, they also offer decentralize oracles. Anyway, I'll stop here because I think I may be coming off as a shill, but I just figured you'd enjoy taking a peak since you could appreciate what they're doing for the ecosystem.