5 ms·

Defi is not this. In defi exchanges you place your coins into a smart contract or have them always on your account. If anything a crypto exchange is a misnomer

by kinnth 4y ago

Defi is not this. In defi exchanges you place your coins into a smart contract or have them always on your account. If anything a crypto exchange is a misnomer as it's not even needed. The only reason it exists is because smart contracts didn't exist when they first started.

charcircuit 4y ago
>The only reason it exists is because smart contracts didn't exist when they first started. Calm down. That is not true. Smart contract based exchanges do not let people exchange real money into crypto. There will always need to be offchain exchanges for trading USD for crypto. Additionally, trading off chain is much cheaper than on chain. Centralized exchanges will always exist because people want on / off ramps, people want low fees, and because people are willing to trust others.
- LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
  >> smart contracts didn't exist when they first started. > Calm down. That is not true. It pretty much is. Bitcoin's solution to scripting exploits was to weaken scripting. It would have been impractical to use BTC for defi and more work was undergoing to fix those problems. The weasels snuck in at the beginning and now that we can do without them they're already in the walls. > Smart contract based exchanges do not let people exchange real money into crypto. For trading there are a couple of options (aside from Tether, which is a scam) for pegging a trade to USD. For on/offramp, you are sorta right. If I want to trade for strawberries I need someone holding strawberries, and I have a risk he'll give me raspberries. > Centralized exchanges will always exist because people want on / off ramps, people want low fees On/off ramps don't require centralization, they only require one legally bound actor, and we can all pick our fave. You may trust a lawyer near you, I may trust my local gold bullion store for up to $5k at a time, etc. Low fees are far better achieved by a channel or rollup based solution, where the assets are essentially on-chain the entire time. > and because people are willing to trust others. This is bad argument. You're trying to make trust virtuous even though removing the need for trust is far better for society - removing risk and friction for everyone.
- oblio 4y ago
  > Additionally, trading off chain is much cheaper than on chain. How this does not wake up all the idiots, I will never understand. How come your superior technology is inferior in one of the crucial axes of trading technology???
  - pclmulqdq 4y ago
    You can't forget that it's also usually slower than trading off-chain. It's inferior in a lot of ways, which is why it never took over the way its proponents thought.
  - SuoDuanDao 4y ago
    it's superior in terms of not having the trusted third party that facilitates your trade make off with your money, as is happening in these self-described exchanges right now. Keeping a trusted third-party in the loop is always cheaper than automating that function using a blockchain, unless the risk is factored in.
    - cma 4y ago
      The risk of misplacing your keys/passphrase or getting hacked with it in plaintext on your computer may be higher across the end-user population.
      - oblio 4y ago
        "May be higher" is a gross understatement. Is "provably much higher" is closer to the truth.
        LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
        There are a few classes of users. If you're the type who always uses the "I forgot my password" workflow on sites then you probably are the type who will lose your keys. But if you're the type of trader who makes a trade and then forgets about it for a while you're at risk of losing the funds left on the exchange - like with Paypal.
- MomoXenosaga 4y ago
  The flaw of BTC: everyone wants to cash out in dollars, euros or Swiss francs. Real money BTC is barely used as an actual currency to buy things with. I could be wrong but I thought the idea was that you'd be using BTC in daily life so that you wouldn't need to go "off the ramp".
  - arcticbull 4y ago
    Well yes but at 2-3tx/sec, that supports a large flea market or a mid-sized costco, not a global economy. Even onboarding everyone onto Lightning would take 75 years, the entire rest of the block reward, about a trillion dollars worth of electricity and many gigatons of e-waste.
  - wizeman 4y ago
    I wouldn't say that's a flaw. There are people, even today, who have no better choice but to use BTC for transactions or for storing value. The point is that if you want to (or need to), you can do it. So people now have that option, which they didn't have before BTC was created. As an example, it might be the best option for doing transactions and storing value for large amounts of people in some area, in times of crisis (e.g. financial crisis, war, oppressive governments, etc). You might not be able to use a fiat currency in such cases without significant downsides, such as extreme inflation, confiscation, blocking of bank withdrawals or transactions, going to prison, etc. Bitcoin is available and can be used whenever such events happen. In fact, if you ever run into a situation like this, you might even desperately need BTC and will be very glad it exists, so don't discount its value so easily. That said, sure, it would be better if there was more adoption. I think there should be and hope there will be. But it's not exactly a flaw, in the same way as you not being able to use the currency of some obscure country in your daily life is not a flaw with that currency.
    - dmitriid 4y ago
      > storing value for large amounts of people in some area, in times of crisis (e.g. financial crisis, war, oppressive governments, etc). > Bitcoin is available and can be used whenever such events happen. Except the fact that bitcoin needs continuous internet access and electricity. The first can be blocked by oppressive government. The second can be hard to come by in times of war. Bitcoin is a first-world solution to imaginary problems.
dmitriid 4y ago
> In defi exchanges you place your coins into a smart contract Oh, you mean the "smart" "contracts" (which are neither) that routinely have trivial exploitable errors that even their authors are unaware of?

by kinnth 4y ago

charcircuit 4y ago

>The only reason it exists is because smart contracts didn't exist when they first started. Calm down. That is not true. Smart contract based exchanges do not let people exchange real money into crypto. There will always need to be offchain exchanges for trading USD for crypto. Additionally, trading off chain is much cheaper than on chain. Centralized exchanges will always exist because people want on / off ramps, people want low fees, and because people are willing to trust others.

LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
>> smart contracts didn't exist when they first started. > Calm down. That is not true. It pretty much is. Bitcoin's solution to scripting exploits was to weaken scripting. It would have been impractical to use BTC for defi and more work was undergoing to fix those problems. The weasels snuck in at the beginning and now that we can do without them they're already in the walls. > Smart contract based exchanges do not let people exchange real money into crypto. For trading there are a couple of options (aside from Tether, which is a scam) for pegging a trade to USD. For on/offramp, you are sorta right. If I want to trade for strawberries I need someone holding strawberries, and I have a risk he'll give me raspberries. > Centralized exchanges will always exist because people want on / off ramps, people want low fees On/off ramps don't require centralization, they only require one legally bound actor, and we can all pick our fave. You may trust a lawyer near you, I may trust my local gold bullion store for up to $5k at a time, etc. Low fees are far better achieved by a channel or rollup based solution, where the assets are essentially on-chain the entire time. > and because people are willing to trust others. This is bad argument. You're trying to make trust virtuous even though removing the need for trust is far better for society - removing risk and friction for everyone.
oblio 4y ago
> Additionally, trading off chain is much cheaper than on chain. How this does not wake up all the idiots, I will never understand. How come your superior technology is inferior in one of the crucial axes of trading technology???
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  You can't forget that it's also usually slower than trading off-chain. It's inferior in a lot of ways, which is why it never took over the way its proponents thought.
- SuoDuanDao 4y ago
  it's superior in terms of not having the trusted third party that facilitates your trade make off with your money, as is happening in these self-described exchanges right now. Keeping a trusted third-party in the loop is always cheaper than automating that function using a blockchain, unless the risk is factored in.
  - cma 4y ago
    The risk of misplacing your keys/passphrase or getting hacked with it in plaintext on your computer may be higher across the end-user population.
    - oblio 4y ago
      "May be higher" is a gross understatement. Is "provably much higher" is closer to the truth.
      - LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
        There are a few classes of users. If you're the type who always uses the "I forgot my password" workflow on sites then you probably are the type who will lose your keys. But if you're the type of trader who makes a trade and then forgets about it for a while you're at risk of losing the funds left on the exchange - like with Paypal.
MomoXenosaga 4y ago
The flaw of BTC: everyone wants to cash out in dollars, euros or Swiss francs. Real money BTC is barely used as an actual currency to buy things with. I could be wrong but I thought the idea was that you'd be using BTC in daily life so that you wouldn't need to go "off the ramp".
- arcticbull 4y ago
  Well yes but at 2-3tx/sec, that supports a large flea market or a mid-sized costco, not a global economy. Even onboarding everyone onto Lightning would take 75 years, the entire rest of the block reward, about a trillion dollars worth of electricity and many gigatons of e-waste.
- wizeman 4y ago
  I wouldn't say that's a flaw. There are people, even today, who have no better choice but to use BTC for transactions or for storing value. The point is that if you want to (or need to), you can do it. So people now have that option, which they didn't have before BTC was created. As an example, it might be the best option for doing transactions and storing value for large amounts of people in some area, in times of crisis (e.g. financial crisis, war, oppressive governments, etc). You might not be able to use a fiat currency in such cases without significant downsides, such as extreme inflation, confiscation, blocking of bank withdrawals or transactions, going to prison, etc. Bitcoin is available and can be used whenever such events happen. In fact, if you ever run into a situation like this, you might even desperately need BTC and will be very glad it exists, so don't discount its value so easily. That said, sure, it would be better if there was more adoption. I think there should be and hope there will be. But it's not exactly a flaw, in the same way as you not being able to use the currency of some obscure country in your daily life is not a flaw with that currency.
  - dmitriid 4y ago
    > storing value for large amounts of people in some area, in times of crisis (e.g. financial crisis, war, oppressive governments, etc). > Bitcoin is available and can be used whenever such events happen. Except the fact that bitcoin needs continuous internet access and electricity. The first can be blocked by oppressive government. The second can be hard to come by in times of war. Bitcoin is a first-world solution to imaginary problems.

dmitriid 4y ago

> In defi exchanges you place your coins into a smart contract Oh, you mean the "smart" "contracts" (which are neither) that routinely have trivial exploitable errors that even their authors are unaware of?